Criminal count in Akhilesh cabinet- 54 pc

Akhilesh Yadav, the new Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh may have undertaken a clean up drive, but the fact is that 26 of the 48 cabinet ministers analysed have a criminal record ie 54 per cent of the ministers.

The affidavits of the the newly appointed cabinet ministers which was analysed by the National Election Watch suggests that 54% ministers i.e. (26 out of 48 analyzed) have self declared criminal cases as per their affidavits filed during the recently concluded Assembly Elections. 9 or 19% ministers out of these 48 analyzed have declared serious IPC charges like rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, dacoity against them.

Among these 26 Ministers who have declared criminal cases against themselves, the following Ministers have declared the highest number of criminal cases against them:

1) Mehboob Ali (of SP from Amroha) has declared 15 cases against himself including charges related to attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery etc.,

2) Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya (IND MLA from Kunda) has declared 8 criminal cases against himself including attempt to murder, kidnapping, dacoity.

3) Arvind Kumar Singh (of SP from Ram Nagar) has declared 3 criminal cases including charges of attempt to murder.

Manoj Kumar Paras of SP from Nagina constituency has declared a rape charge in his affidavit submitted to the Election Commission at the time of his nomination. The others in the list who are in the top ten are Vinod Kumar, Rajendra Singh Rana, Manoj Kumar Paras, Ram Karan Arya, Jagadish and Bhawat Saran.

The crorepatis:

The affidavits that have been analysed have also found that 38 out of the 48 cabinet ministers in the Yadav cabinet are crorepatis.

Kunwar Anand Singh of SP from Gaura constituency has the highest assets (Rs. 18.30 Crores) among the Uttar Pradesh cabinet ministers followed by Raja Mahendra Aridaman Singh of SP from Bah constituency with assets worth Rs.14.79 Crores followed by Raja Bhaiya an IND MLA from Kunda Constituency with assests worth Rs. 7.11 Crores among the Uttar Pradesh cabinet ministers .

The average asset of a minister in Uttar Pradesh comes out to be 2.79 crores. Balram Yadav member of legislative council in Uttar Pradesh with assets worth 16.31 lakhs, has the lowest assets among all the ministers analyzed in Uttar Pradesh.

Among the 48 ministers analyzed, only 1(2%), Aruna Kumari of SP from Bilhaur is a women minister.

Record:

Uttar Pradesh had created a record of sorts. Out of the 2195 candidates which contested the election 795 had criminal records against them. This meant that 35 per cent of the candidates who contested the elections had criminal records against them.

SP had 199 out of 401 (50 per cent), BJP had 144 out of 397 (36 per cent), INC had 120 out of 354 (34 per cent), BSP had 131 out of 403 (33 per cent), Janata Dal(United) had 46 out of 220 (21 per cent), Peace Party had 55 out of 209 (26 per cent), Apna Dal had 22 out of 76 (29 per cent), Qaumi Ekta Dal had 13 out of 38 (34 per cent), Rashtriya Lok Dal had 16 out of 46 (35 per cent), Bundelkhand Congress had 5 out of 33 (15 per cent) candidates with pending criminal cases.

After the final result there were 189 MLAs with a criminal record which meant 47 per cent of the UP assembly had criminal candidates. The number shot up since 2007 when there were 140 such candidates. Out of these 189 MLAs, 98 (24 per cent) have serious criminal cases against them. In 2007, out of the 140 such MLAs 78 faced serious charges.
The most criminal cases (36) found were against Samajwadi Party’s Mitra Sen from the Bikapur constituency. Among these cases, 14 are related to murder. Sushil Singh, an Independent who was elected from Sakaldiha, faces 20 criminal charges including 12 related to murder followed by SP’s Ram Veer Singh, who has 18 criminal cases pending (eight related to murder.

Advertisements

Drought and a dispute

Photo courtesy: The Hindu
Photo courtesy: The Hindu

There is a lot of politics that is taking place in Karnataka over the drought situation this year, but the fact of the matter is that the scenario is pretty bad. The very fact that Chief Minister of Karnataka Sadananda Gowda has demanded a relief fund of Rs 2200 crore from the Union Government for drought relief work itself is an indication that the situation is not looking too good. In addition to this there is also the added headache of the very infamous Cauvery waters dispute.

There are nearly 120 taluks which are reeling under drought and North Karnataka appears to be the worst hit in this situation like always. The Krishna basin is probably the worst hit and the water levels have gone down so much that it has taken a hit on drinking water too. The biggest reservoir in the region, the Almatti too has recorded 23 TMC of less water this year when compared the previous years.

Going by the situation in the towns of Bagalkot and Bijapur in North Karnataka the situation states that this is the worst possible situation that the residents have faced in 40 years.

The officials in the district administration paint a worried picture of the scenario and say that there is a movement of people from these regions into other parts of the state which have better rainfall. We usually get good rains, but this year the rains have played truant and the challenges ahead are extremely tough.

The water crisis in North Karnataka has not only taken a hit for humans, but there is equal suffering for the cattle and the live stock too. In the areas of Belgaum water is being supplied everyday in nearly 150 tankers. Belgaum for example used to face a water crisis in just 9 villages, but this year nearly 23 villages in the area have been hit due to bad rainfall. The problem is similar in the areas of Bagalkot, Dharwad and Bijapur, Gadag and Haveri too according to statistics.

The Northern part of Karnataka is always the most affected when there is a drought. Hubli in particular is a worst case example of urban governance. The twin cities of Hubli and Dharwad have a population of 18 lakh. There are 65 wards here but 24 hour water supply is restricted to just 5 wards. The rest of the wards depend on the government installed water taps which give water only once in 15 days.

Take the case of Gulbarga, Raichur, Koppal, gadag and Bellary which are also in North Karnataka. All these areas have been getting drinking water once in 21 days. Yes there may be constant water supply, but there are two qualities of water that is available here. While pure drinking water is available once in 21 days the other type of water which is high in salts suitable only for washing purpose is available more often in open wells. Once again it does not appear that the projects have been implemented correctly as for each village there is just one open well which again does not supply quality drinking water.

In the year 1998 Karnataka had asked for a world bank loan to rectify the water problem. This grant however came in only 4 years later. The idea was to ensure that all hamlets in Karnataka get surface water which is believed to be less polluted. While Karnataka did manage to set up such plants what the government did not focus on was the recharging of this water. Recharging of this water is extremely important to ensure that there is constant water supply.

Then comes the problem of decentralization in such projects. Any local body has to approach the state cabinet in order to implement any project relating to water. In the case of an urban body the state cabinet in Bangalore had to be approached in case the project was worth above Rs 1 crore. However the problem was for the local bodies such as the Zilla Panchayats which have to seek an approval in case the project is above Rs 10 lakh. Files got stuck for long periods and the work was never implemented the people accuse. To beat this, the local bodies implemented two projects worth Rs 9 lakh and more often than not all the money was never utilised for the projects.

The situation in the areas of H D Kote and Hunsur are also grim and Chief Minister, Sadananda Gowda said that they were considering including these areas too into the list of drought affected areas. The government also seeks to give Gulbarga, Raichur, Bidar, Koppal and Yadgir in the Hyderabad-Karnataka special status.

Going by the statistics put out in terms of rainfall received by Karnataka the picture looks grim.

-Rather Very Heavy Rain received in parts of Hassan, Kodagu & Mandya District.

-Moderate Very Heavy Rain received in parts of Chamarajanagara, Chikkamagalur, Chitradurga, Dakshina. Kannada, Mysore, Ramanagara, Shimoga and Tumkur District.

-Isolated, Light rain received in parts of Bangalore Rural, Bangalore Urban, Bellary, Chikkaballapura, Davanagere, Haveri and Yadgir districts.

-Very Light rain received in parts of Bagalkote, Belgaum, Dharwad, Gulbarga, Kolar, Raichur & Uttara Kannada districts.

-Dry weather condition prevailed remaining parts of the State

The dispute– While on one hand every political party wants to have a say in the drought issue, the other issue that is likely to crop up is the never ending Cauvery Water’s dispute.

Tamil Nadu has been raising a claim for more water, but Karnataka has been arguing that the share of water which was possible has already been given.

Tamil Nadu in turn has sought a clarification and the matter will come up before the tribunal in New Delhi on April 17th.

Mohan Katarki who argues the case on behalf of Karnataka says that the matter was to be listed before the Supreme Court in February, but it did not come up. It does not appear that it would be taken up before the court vacation. Tamil Nadu had initially sought a clarification of the award but the tribunal wanted the Supreme Court to first dispose off the matter. Now they have sought another clarification about the old award and that would be taken up on April 17th.

Karnataka on the other hand has been arguing that that 2007 awards regarding water sharing cannot be in play as the situation in terms of rains do vary. Karnataka had even sought the intervention of the Prime Minister on the issue, but that has not taken place as yet. Over the years, Karnataka claims that it has given more than the share of water. The average water that has been given has ranged in between 210 to 300 TMC, although Tamil Nadu has sought 300 TMC of water while Karnataka says that this is something which was existent as per the 1924 agreement and the same cannot be implemented in today’s scenario.

However the legal experts say that on this dispute there is not much to be worried about. Karnataka is doing its share and annually the state needs to give 192 TMC of water which is again broken in monthly and weekly statistics. Moreover depending on the situation there is also a carry forward option. Karnataka says that while 192 TMC is the limit that needs to be shared which is 62 per cent of the water in the catchment above the Krishna Raja Sagar Reservoir, the state has already shared 175 TMC this year and hence there ought not to be a problem.

Jagan plans on moving SC

Jagan Mohan Reddy the YSR Congress leader has decided to move the Supreme Court against the chargesheet that was filed against him in the illegal assets case. The CBI had filed a chargesheet against Jagan and 12 others stating that they had fraudulently used the office of the late Dr. Y S Rajasekara Reddy to acquire land and had amasses ill gotten wealth.
The mood in the Jagan camp today is however not a dull one. They are confident that their leader would come out clean. They say that the fact that he was not arrested or even questioned before the chargesheet was filed itself was an indication that the case was a weak one.
However the biggest defence taken by Jagan is that the Supreme Court had issued notices to 6 sitting Congress MLAs who are also ministers in connection with the same case. The notices were issued in connection with 26 deals which are pertaining to the same case. All decisions are that of the Congress cabinet and just because Jagan is no longer in that party it does not mean that only he is to be blamed. The Congress will need to take responsibility and we would like to see if they would shield their ministers or allow them to be probed, members of the YSR Congress said.
The last time Jagan had moved the Supreme Court against the CBI probe, he returned without relief. The court had however said that he could move it again at an appropriate time when the investigation is complete and this would not be the time to stop the investigation.
His legal team is currently in discussion and would decide on a suitable date to approach the Supreme Court in the next couple of days.

Posted from WordPress for BlackBerry.

Shri Shri clarifies

Spiritual Guru, Shri Shri Ravishankar who is in the midst of a controversy regarding a comment on naxals and government schools clarified that he never said thay government schools breed naxalism.
In a statement issued at Bangalore, he said that, ‘I did not say all Govt schools (where lakhs study) breed Naxalism. Great talents have emerged from these schools and I would never generalise.
I specifically referred to sick government schools in Naxal affected areas. Many who have turned to Naxalism have come from these schools. The Art of Living is running 185 free schools in such areas.I urge more institutions to join this effort to spread peace through education.

58 months, 59 crores – That is Maya

Photo courtesy: http://www.daylife.com/
Photo courtesy: http://www.daylife.com/

Rs 11.35 crore in 2004 to Rs 87.27 crore in 2010 and now Rs 111.64 crore. This is by and large the story of the former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati. Her affidavit which was filed before the Lok Sabha on Tuesday shows a phenomenal rise in her assets and for the 58 months that she ruled as the Chief Minister her assets went up by nearly 59 crore.

As per her declaration the BSP leader and former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh graduated from Kalindi College, Delhi University in 1975. She also states that she did her B.Ed from Meerut University and LLB from the Delhi University. However in terms of the criminal cases there has been no instance where cognisance has been taken against her.

First let us take a look at her latest affidavit which was filed along with her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha. There are immovable assets to the tune of Rs 96.38 crore and moveable assets worth Rs 15.26 crore. Besides this in her affidavit she has declared that she has Rs 14 crore in five different bank accounts, diamond jewellery worth Rs 96.53 lakh, a revolver worth around Rs 5400 and murals worth Rs 15 lakh.

Further her affidavit states that she has two residential buildings at Delhi and Lucknow worth Rs 77.54 crore.  As per her tax returns filed for the year 2011 she states that a tax return of Rs 6.51 crore was filed. She further states that her immovable assets are valued at Rs 96.38 crore which include both residential and commercial buildings at Lucknow and Delhi. At Connaught Place in New Delhi she has purchased two commercial buildings which are valued at Rs 18.84 crore.

Assets in the year 2004:

Her assets in the year 2004 as per her affidavit were valued at Rs 11 crore. The immovable assets were valued at 10 crore while the immovable assets at 1 crore.

Details of movable assets- 2004:

Deposits in banks, financial institutions and non banking financial companies were 9.78 crore. The declaration in so far as bonds, debentures, shares, NSS, Postal savings, LIC or other insurance policies were NIL. In this year she also stated that she did not possess a motor vehicle. Her jewellery was valued at Rs 30.94 lakh. In all her immovable assets were valued at Rs 10,10,44,000.

Details of immovable assets:

In this section she declares that she had a building at Indrapuri in New Delhi worth Rs .1.25 crore. The building address was given as House No-57,58, 74, 75 and had a total area of 1698 sq ft. Apart from this she states that she possessed no agriculture land, non agriculture land, houses or any other form of property.

Liabilities:

Her details of liabilities read like a clean sheet in the year 2004. She declared that she had no bank loans or loans from anyother financial institution. There were no dues in her taxes both income and property. Also there were no dues to any department be it the housing, electricity, water boards. There were no bills due in the telecom department also.

Assets in 2007:

It was in this year that she contested a by-election after becoming the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. This time she declared assets worth Rs 52 crore.

As per her declaration she had assets worth Rs 52 crore. These assets included Rs 50.27 lakh in cash apart from deposits in the bank worth Rs 12.88 lakh. She also declared that she had diamonds worth Rs 50 lakh, murals to the tune of Rs 15 lakh and jewellery worth Rs 50.87 lakh. In addition to this she also declared that she had a silver dinner set which was valued at Rs 1.12 lakh. However she declared that she did not have a car even then.

Among her immovable assets was a house at Lucknow which cost Rs 97.40 lakh. At Delhi she declared having a commercial property on Connaught Place worth Rs 19 crore and a house also in Delhi worth Rs 18.02 crore.

Assets in 2010:

There was quite a steep rise when she declared her assets in the year 2010.  This year she had contested the legislative council elections as she needed to seek a re-election as she had fought a by-election in the year 2007. She declared that she had Rs 87 crore plus assets. Her movable assets were valued at Rs 12 crore plus while her immovable assets were valued at Rs 74 crore plus

Movable assets:

She declared that she had cash of Rs 129500 and deposites in financial institutions to the tune of Rs 11,39,03,000. Her bonds, shares, LIC policies, debentures or personal loans all amounted to NIL. This year too she stated that she was not in possession of a motor vehicle.  Her jewellery details are as follows-  1034.260 Grams Gold(18 Cts.), Daimond (380.17Cts.) worth Rs  86,08,000. She also stated that she had a dinner set worth Rs  4,44,000. She has declared murals worth Rs 15 lakh. In all these value up to Rs 12,57,50,000.

A clean assembly- We have a long way to go

Forty seven per cent of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly has candidates with criminal cases pending against them. Despite issues pertaining to D P Yadav and Kushwaha making national headlines, the UP assembly does have a very sorry picture to paint as nearly half of the candidates one or more criminal cases pending against them.

The Association for Democratic Reforms and the National Election Watch has been analysing the candidates based on their affidavits filed and no state barring Manipur is free of a criminal candidate today. Speaking of Uttar Pradesh, the list has only gone up and when compared to the 37 per cent criminal candidates in the year 2007, the year 2012 has 47 per cent.

There has been a general awareness regarding this issue since the past four years and the ADR/NEW has been creating this by putting lists of such candidates. However has the message gone across to these political parties which continue to field tainted candidates. Anil Bairwal, National Convenor of the ADR and NEW says that they are doing their best to create this awareness, but it is now entirely up to the political parties to do their bit. In this interview with rediff.com, Bairwal points out there is no doubt that people want clean candidates, but they are left with no choice if in one constituency political parties decide to field all criminal candidates.

A jump in the number of criminal candidates- has the battle been lost?

I would not say that. The thing is that there is no doubt that the people want clean candidates. The problem is with these political parties which are run in autocratic and non democratic fashion. These parties end up giving tickets to tainted candidates.

What do you think of the role of the voter who continues to cast his or her vote despite having such candidates?

The general voter can only vote for the names that are on the ballot paper. Unfortunately there is nothing much a voter can do. In case the voter decides to boycott such a candidate, then he is blamed for not helping to make a change. Take the case of Uttar Pradesh where there were so many red alert constituencies which had all criminal candidates. What could the voter possibly do here?

What about the role of the election commission of India? Do you think the body is not doing much about this issue?

The Election Commission of India can only do what it is chartered to do under the Constitution of India. They have to follow the law of the land and there is no law which bars candidates with pending criminal charges from contesting the election.

Is there a role that the judiciary could play in this?

Yes there is a big role in fact that the judiciary could play. The problem that we have come across after analysing the candidates is that there are many with cases which have been pending for years together. It is the job of the judiciary to take up these cases and dispose them off in a speedy manner. Taking years for a trial to complete defeats the very purpose and the candidate can go ahead and contest as the case is pending. The law clearly states that only a candidate who has been convicted cannot contest the elections.


There is a clear problem on hand legally. Do we give up or is there some other solution?

In the absence of a law in this regard the job of the political parties becomes even more important to keep such candidates out of the system.

Your campaign appears to be more of an online one. There hardly a ten per cent viewership online in our country. So does that approach really help reach the masses?

We have multiple ways of reaching the voter and the online campaign is just one among them. The online medium is more for journalists who can use our data to carry forward the message to the voter. During the Uttar Pradesh elections, we held a lot of meetings in various constituencies. We had multiple strategies to reach both the urban and the rural voter including a toll free helpline giving out information regarding the candidates.

Despite all the efforts put in by you, the number of candidates shot up. Why is this so?

As I said we have done our best and it is for the political parties to ensure that such candidates are kept out. We are an NGO at the end of the day and cannot possibly be everywhere. Our political parties have become thick skinned and unless there is this extraordinary pressure on them they will not react. You got to see the same in the Lok Pal bill. Despite such huge pressure they still did not buckle even one bit. When this being the case, do you expect them to pass a law in Parliament regarding criminal candidates? We are doing our best to create an awareness and let us hope that the results are better.

Which party has been the most notorious when it came to fielding criminal candidates?

All parties are the same and I cannot tell the difference. It is very hard to convince them to change. Even when it came to filing IT returns, we were engaged in a battle for 2 years before we finally could get them to file the same. This issue of banning such candidates from contesting the elections had come up in the year 1990. At that time they had said that there was no need for such a law because political parties were aware that they ought not to field such candidates. But did this happen? It needs to be done through public pressure as that alone has a chance of working so that we could have a changed scenario for the better.

189 criminal candidates in UP, ie 47 per cent!

The new Uttar Pradesh assembly will function with a staggering 189 criminal candidates. This means nearly half (47 per cent) of the MLAs in the recently elected UP assembly have criminal cases pending against them. This infact is quite a rise when compared to 2007 where there were 140 MLAs with pending criminal cases against them.
The Association for Democratic Reforms provides a detailed analysis for the Uttar Pradesh assembly in which it says that it has analysed 403 candidates.
Out of the 403 MLAs analyzed for Uttar Pradesh 2012 Assembly Elections, 189 (47%) have declared criminal cases against them. In 2007 assembly elections for the whole of Uttar Pradesh, out of 403 MLAs analyzed,  140 (35%) MLAs had declared criminal cases against themselves.
Out of these 189 (47%) MLAs with declared criminal cases against them, 98 MLAs (24%) have declared serious criminal cases against them. In 2007 assembly elections, out of 140 (35%) MLAs with declared criminal cases, 78 (19.35%) had declared serious criminal cases against them.
The top 3 MLAs who have declared the maximum number of serious cases against themselves are: 1) Mitra Sen (SP, Bikapur constituency) with 36 criminal cases including 14 cases related to murder, 2) Sushil Singh (Independent, Sakaldiha) with 20 criminal cases including 12 charges related to murder, 3) Ram Veer Singh (SP, Jasrana) with 18 criminal cases including 8 charges related to murder.
Among other parties, the following MLAs have declared the maximum number of serious criminal cases against them, 1) Mohd. Aleem khan (BSP, Bulandsahar) with 3 criminal cases including 4 seious IPCs. These serious IPCs inculdes 1 charges related to murder and 1 charges related to rape, 2) Ajay (INC, Pindra constituency) with 8 criminal cases including 3 charges related to murder, 3) Upendra (BJP, Phephana) with 11 criminal cases including 5 charges related to murder, 4) Mokhtar Ansari (Qaumi Ekta Dal, Mau Constituency) with 15 criminal cases including 8 charges related to murder.

The crorepatis:
Out of all 403 MLAs analyzed from Uttar Pradesh 2012 Assembly Elections, 271 (67%) are crorepatis. In 2007 Assembly Election for the whole of Uttar Pradesh , 124 (30.77%) MLAs were crorepatis.
The MLAs with maximum assets in Uttar Pradesh is of Nawab Kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency with assets worth Rs. 56.89 Crores followed by Shah Alam of BSP from Mubarakpur with assets worth Rs. 54.44 Crores and Mahesh Kumar Sharma of BJP from Noida constituency with assets worth Rs. 37.45 crores.
6 MLAs have declared assets of less than 5 lakhs.
A total of 22 (5.5%) MLAs out of 403 analyzed declared liabilities of Rs. 1 crore and above.
Among major parties, the average asset per candidate for SP is 2.52 Crores, for BSP is 4.44 crore, For BJP is 4.01 crore and INC is 4.61 crore.
A total of 239 (59%) MLAs (out of 403 analyzed) are graduate or with higher educational qualification in the Uttar Pradesh 2012 Assembly Election.
Only 40 (10%) MLAs (out of 403 analyzed) are 8th pass and below
Out of 403 MLAs of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2012, only 32 (8%) MLAs are women.
Highlights (Analysis of asset increase of newly elected MLAs who also contested in 2007)

Asset increase:
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2007 was Rs98,31,867  (98.31 Lakhs).
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2012 is, Rs 3,08,12,386  (3.08 crore).
Average asset growth for these re-contesting MLAs is Rs 2,09,80,519 (2.09 crore).
Average percentage growth in assets for these MLA is 213%.
Nawab kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency has the highest increase in asset worth Rs.47.70 Crores (from 9.18 crore in 2007 to 56.89 Crores in 2012), followed by Subhash of SP from Saidpur (SC) constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 30.61 Crores (from 4.70 crores in 2007 to 35.32 Crores in 2012) and Devendra Aggarwal of SP from Sadabad constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 16.95 Crores (from 4.95 crores in 2007 to 21.91 Crores in 2012)
The highest percentage increase (21827%) has been for Wahab of BSP from Muradnagar constituency. His assets rose from 30 thousand in 2007 to 65.78 lakhs in 2012. He is followed by Jai Prakash of BSP from Chauri-chaura constituency with a percentage increase of 5332% (6.25 lakhs in 2007 to 3.39 crores in 2012) and Sudhir Kumar of SP from Safipur (SC) constituency with an increase of 4750% (1.29 lakhs in 2007 to 62.90 lakhs in 2012).

19 criminal candidates in Uttarakhand Assembly

Uttarakhand has 19 criminal candidates in its newly elected assembly as per a report by the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Out of these 70 MLAs analyzed for Uttarakhand Assembly Elections, 19 (27%) have declared criminal cases against them. In 2007 Assembly elections for the whole of Uttarakhand Pradesh, 24% MLAs had declared criminal cases against themselves.
Out of these 19 MLAs who have declared criminal cases against themselves, 5 (7%) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.
A total of 32 out of 70 MLAs i.e. 46% are crorepatis. In 2007, there are 16% crorepati MLAs.
The MLAs with maximum assets in 2012 Uttarakhand Assembly is Rajesh Shukla of BJP from Kichha constituency with assets worth Rs. 26.63 Crores followed by Amrita Rawat of INC from Ramnagar with Rs. 13.57 Crores and Surendra Singh Jeena of BJP from Salt constituency with assets worth Rs. 7.04 crores.
3 MLAs have declared assets of less than 10 lakh.
A total of 6 (9%) MLAs out of 70 analyzed declared liabilities of Rs. 40 lakhs or above.
Among major parties, the average asset per MLA for INC is 1.87 Crore, for BJP is 2.02 Crore, for BSP is 1.21 crores and for UKD (P) is 1.27 Crores.
71% MLAs (50 of 70 analyzed) are graduates and above.
Out of 70 MLAs in Uttarakhand Assembly Elections 2012, only 5 (7%) MLAs are women.

Asset Increase:
Number of re-contesting MLAs analyzed for Uttarakhand 2012 Assembly Elections– 50
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2007 is Rs83,34,174(83.34 Lakhs).
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2012 is, Rs 2,30,46,876 (2.30 Crore).
Average asset growth for these re-contesting MLAs is Rs 1,47,12,701 (1.47 Crore).
Average percentage growth in assets for these MLA is 177%.
Rajesh Shukla of BJP from Kichha constituency has shown the highest increase in asset worth Rs.25.76 Crores (from 87.57 Lakhs in 2007 to 26.63 Crores in 2012), followed by Surendra Singh Jeena of BJP from Salt constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 6.26 Crores (from 78.00 Lakhs in 2007 to 7.04 Crores in 2012) and Yashpal Arya of INC from Bazpur constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 3.71 Crores (from 81.62 Lakhs in 2007 to 4.52 Crores in 2012).
The highest percentage increase (8433%) has been for Bishan Singh Chuphal of BJP from Didihat constituency. His assets rose from 1.18 Lakhs in 2007 to 1.01 Crores in 2012. He is followed by Mayukh Singh of INC from Pithoragarh constituency with a percentage increase of 4773% (from 6.30 Lakhs in 2007 to 3.07 Crores in 2012) and Banshidhar Bhagat of BJP from Kaladhungi constituency with an increase of 2968% (from 2.38 Lakhs in 2007 to 73.02 Lakhs in 2012).

Not one criminal candidate in Manipur

Manipur could well become a model assembly with no candidate having pending criminal charges against them. A report by the Association for Democratic Reforms states that out of the 60 newly elected MLAs of the Manipur Assembly, no MLA has declared criminal cases against him/her. In the 2007 assembly elections for the whole of Manipur, 2% MLAs had declared criminal cases against themselves.
Out of all 60 MLAs analyzed from Manipur 2012 Assembly Elections, 16 are crorepatis. In 2007 Assembly Election for the whole of Manipur only 1 MLA was crorepati.
The MLAs with maximum assets in Manipur is of T.N. Haokip of INC from Saikot(ST) constituency with assets worth Rs. 10.07 Crores followed by Ksh. Biren Singh of INC from Lamlai with assets worth Rs. 5.22 Crores and RK IMO Singh of MSCP from Sagoiband constituency with assets worth Rs. 2.72 crores.
6 MLAs have declared assets of less than 5 lakhs.
A total of 5 (8%) MLAs out of 60 analyzed declared liabilities of Rs. 50 Lakhs or above.
Among major parties, the average asset per candidate for INC is 1.05 Crores, for AITC is 69.8 Lakhs, For MSCP is 97.43 Lakhs, and NPF is 68.5 lakhs
A total of 49 (82%) MLAs (out of 60 analyzed) are graduate or with higher educational qualification in the Manipur 2012 Assembly Election.
Only 4 (7%) MLAs (out of 60 analyzed) are 10th pass and below
Out of 60 MLAs of Manipur Assembly Elections 2012, only 3 (5%) MLAs are women.

Asset Increase:
Number of MLAs for Manipur 2012 Assembly Elections, whose 2007 affidavits are also available–35
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2007 was Rs20,02,492 (20.02 Lakhs).
The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2012 is, Rs 1,18,45,767 (1.18 crore).
Average asset growth for these re-contesting MLAs is Rs 98,43,274 (98.43 Lakhs).
Average percentage growth in assets for these MLA is 492%.
T.N. haokip of INC from Saikot constituency has the highest increase in asset worth Rs.9.77 Crores (from 29.73 Lakhs in 2007 to 10.07 Crores in 2012), followed by Ksh. Biren Singh of INC from Lamlai constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 5.07 Crores (from 14.23 Lakhs in 2007 to 5.22 Crores in 2012) and Kh. Govindas of INC from Bishenpur constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 2.11 Crores (from 38.25 Lakhs in 2007 to 2.49 Crores in 2012)
The highest percentage increase (7108%) has been for K. Meghachandra of INC from Wangkhem constituency. His assets rose from 2.90 lakhs in 2007 to 2.06 Crores in 2012. He is followed by Akoijam Mirabai Devi of INC from Patsoi constituency with a percentage increase of 4621% (30.5 thousand in 2007 to 14.40 Lakhs in 2012) and K. Ranjit Singh of INC from Sugnoo constituency with an increase of 4351% (3.82 lakhs in 2007 to 1.70 crores in 2012).

The UP story- criminals and crorepatis

Uttar Pradesh had in all 795 candidates with a criminal record. That would mean out of the 2195 candidates who contested the election 35 per cent or more had criminal cases pending against them.

A report combining the candidates who contested in all the phases in Utttar Pradesh has been put out by the Uttar Pradesh Election Watch and the Association for Democratic Reforms. The Samajwadi Party tops the list while the BJP and the Congress held the second and third spot in this tainted department.

Out of these 2195 candidates analyzed by UPEW/ADR, 759 candidates or 35 % declared pending criminal cases against them. SP had 199 out of 401 (50 %), BJP had 144 out of 397 (36 %), INC had 120 out of 354 (34 %), BSP had 131 out of 403 (33 %), JD(U) had 46 out of 220 (21 %), Peace Party had 55 out of 209 (26 %), Apna Dal had 22 out of 76 (29 %), Qaumi Ekta Dal had 13 out of 38 (34 %), RLD had 16 out of 46 (35 %), Bundelkhand Congress had 5 out of 33 (15 %) candidates with pending criminal cases. Out of the above 759 candidates who have declared criminal cases, Brijesh Singh alias Arun Kumar Singh (Pragatishil Manav Samaj Party, Saiyadraja constituency) with 39 criminal cases including 47 charges related to murder. He is followed by Atiq Ahmed (Apna Dal, Allahabad West constituency) has declared maximum number of criminal cases. He has declared 44 criminal cases including 12 charges related to murder, 5 charges related to kidnapping and abducting in order to murder and 3 charges of extortion and Mitra Sen (SP, Bikapur constituency) with 36 criminal cases including 14 cases related to murder. Among the major parties, the candidates who have declared the maximum number of serious cases against themselves are: 1) Mitra Sen (SP, Bikapur constituency) with 36 criminal cases including 14 cases related to murder. 2) Indra Pratap (BSP, Goshainganj) with 31 criminal cases including 10 charges related to murder, 1 charge of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder and another charge related to robbery. 3) Upendra (BJP, Phephana) has 11 cases against himself including 5 charges related to murder 4) Ajay (INC, Pindra) has 8 cases against himself including 3 charges related to attempt to murder 5) Manveer Singh (JD(U), Jewar) has declared 31 cases against himself including 15 charges related to murder. Out of these 759 candidates with pending criminal cases, 340 (16 %) have pending serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc. SP had 92 , BSP had 57 , BJP had 57 , INC had 50 , Peace Party had 30 , JD(U) had 20 , Apna Dal had 11 , RLD had 8 , QAUMI EKTA DAL had 5 and Bundelkhand Congress had 3 . Among all the analyzed candidates, 5 candidates have charges of rape against them. They are Shri Bhagwan Sharma (SP) of Bulandshahar, Shahnawaz Rana (RLD) of Bijnor, Mohd. Aleem Khan (BSP) of Bulandshahar, Anoop Sanda (SP) of Sultanpur and Manoj Kumar Paras (SP) from Bijnor constituency.

A total of 1046 candidates out of 2195 analyzed i.e. 48% were crorepatis. In 2007, there were 22% crorepati candidates. The candidates with maximum assets are Najir Ahmed of INC from Agra South constituency with assets worth 141 Crores followed by Nand Gopal of BSP from Allahabad South constituency with assets worth 95.26 Crores and Nawab Kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency with assets worth 56.89 Crores. A total of 70 candidates out of 2195 analyzed (3.2%) declared liabilities of 1 Crore or above. Among major parties,the average asset per candidate for BSP was approximate 3.39 Crores , For SP was 2.45 Crores , For BJP was 1.92 Crores , For INC was 2.98 Crores , For JD(U) was 56.64 Lacs , For Peace Party was 1.03 Crores , For Apna Dal was 96.27 Lacs , For RLD was 4.05 Crores , For QAUMI EKTA DAL was 85.77 Lacs and For Bundelkhand Congress was 46.22 Lacs Out of 6850 contesting candidates in Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2012, only 594 (8.7%) candidates are women.

Asset Increase:

Number of re-contesting MLAs analyzed for UP 2012 Assembly Elections– 285

The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2007 is Rs 1,21,26,559 (1.21 crore). The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2012 is, Rs 3,56,67,212 (3.56 crore). Average asset growth for these re-contesting MLAs is Rs 2,35,40,653 (2.35 crore). Average percentage growth in assets for these MLA is 194%. Nand Gopal of BSP from Allahabad South constituency has shown the highest increase in asset worth Rs.79.94 Crores (from 15.32 Crores to 95.26 Crores), followed by Nawab Kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency with an asset increase of Rs.47.70 Crores (from 9.18 Crores in 2007 to 56.89 Crores in 2012), followed by Dharam Pal Yadav of Rashtriya Parivartan Dal from Sahaswan constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 28.30 Crores (from 14.42 Crores in 2007 to 47.72 Crores in 2012) The highest percentage increase (13074%) has been for Kaushlendra Nath of JD(U) from Tulsipur constituency . His assets rose from 51.94 thousand in 2007 to 68.42 Lakhs in 2012. He is followed by Jitendra Kumar of BSP from Chakia (SC) with a percentage increase of 7922% (2.37 lakhs in 2007 to 1.90 crores in 2012) and Mahendra Singh Rajpoot of SP from Etawah with an increase of 6021% (5.25 lakhs in 2007 to 3.21 Crores in 2012).

Details of 7th phase candidates:

Uttar Pradesh Election Watch (UPEW) has analyzed affidavits of 325 candidates out of 962 candidates who are contesting the 7th Phase of Uttar Pradesh 2012 Assembly Elections.

Out of these 325 candidates analyzed for the 7th phase of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections, 98 candidates or 30 % declared criminal cases against them. In 2007 assembly elections for the whole of Uttar Pradesh, 27% candidates had declared criminal cases against themselves.

Amongst major parties, every party has given tickets to candidates who have declared criminal cases. SP has 27 out of 60 (45 %), BJP has 20 out of 60 (33 %), BSP has 13 out of 60 (22 %) INC has 14 out of 51 (27 %), RLD has 4 out of 10 (40 %), Peace Party has 13 out of 45 (29 %), JD(U) has 4 out of 26 (15 %), Ittehad-E-Millat Council has 1 out of 1 (100 %) and Rastriya Parivartan Dal has 1 out of 1 (100 %) candidates with pending criminal cases.

Out of these 98 candidates with declared criminal cases, 37 have declared serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, extortion etc. SP has 12 , BJP has 6, BSP has 4, INC has 3, RLD has 2, JD(U) has 3, Peace Party has 5 and Rastriya Parivartan Dal has 1 such candidates.

Among these 98 candidates of 7th Phase who have declared criminal cases against themselves, Mehboob Ali of SP, contesting from Amroha constituency) has declared maximum number of criminal cases. He has declared 15 criminal cases including 3 charges related to murder. He is followed by Abid Raja Khan (SP, Badaun constituency) who has declared 10 criminal cases including 3 charges related to murder and Dharam Yadav (Rashtriya Parivartan Dal, Sahaswan constituency) has declared 8 criminal cases including 4 charges related to murder.

Among other major parties, the following candidates have declared the highest number of serious criminal cases against them: 1) Virendra Singh (of BSP contesting from Bithari Chainpur) has declared 2 cases against himself including 2 charges related to murder. 2) Arvind Giri (of INC contesting from Gola Golaknath constituency) has declared 8 cases against himself including 1 charge related to murder. 3) Shahnawaz Rana (of RLD from Bijnor constituency) has declared 6 criminal charges including 1 charge related to murder and 1 charge related to rape. And 4) Ramveer Singh (BJP, Kundarki constituency) has declared 5 criminal charges including 2 charges related to murder and Anoop Singh (JD{U}, Nighasan constituency) has declared1 criminal charge including 1 charge related to murder.

A total of 169 candidates out of 325 analyzed i.e. 52% are crorepatis. In 2007, there were 22% crorepati candidates.

The candidates with maximum assets in 7th Phase is Nawab Kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency with assets worth Rs. 56.89 Crores followed by Dharam Yadav of Rashtriya Parivartan Dal from Sahaswan with Rs. 42.72 Crores and Supriya Aron of INC from Bareilly Cantt. constituency with assets worth Rs. 27.69 crores.

1 candidate, Shamshad Hussain (Bundelkhand Congress) of Bilari constituency, has declared assets of less than 1 lakh (Rs. 85,000).

A total of 29 (9%) candidates out of 325 analyzed declared liabilities of Rs. 40 Lacs or above.

Among major parties, the average asset per candidate for BSP is 2.86 Crore, for INC is 3.18 Crore, for RLD is 5.19 crores, for SP is 1.95 Crore, for BJP is 1.62 Crore, for JD(U) is 51.79 Lacs, for Peace Party is 59.33 Lacs, for Bundelkhand Congress is 12.24 Lacs and for Apna Dal is 1.16 Crores.

59% candidates (192 of 325 analyzed) were graduates and above.

Out of 962 candidates contesting for 7th phase of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2012, only 100 (11%) candidates are women.

Highlights (Analysis of asset increase of re-contesting MLAs in the 7th Phase of UP elections)

Number of re-contesting MLAs analyzed for 7th phase of UP 2012 Assembly Elections– 47 The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2007 is Rs 1,13,03,326 (1.13 crores). The average asset of these MLAs as declared in 2012 is, Rs 4,74,96,422 (4.74 crore). Average asset growth for these re-contesting MLAs is Rs 3,61,93,096 (3.61 crore). Average percentage growth in assets for these MLA is 320%. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan of INC from Suar constituency has shown the highest increase in asset worth Rs.47.70 Crores (from 9.18 Crores in 2007 to 56.89 Crores in 2012), followed by Dharam Pal Yadav of RPD from Sahaswan constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 28.30 Crores (from 14.42 Crores in 2007 to 47.72 Crores in 2012) and Shahnawaz Rana of RLD from Bijnor constituency with an asset increase of Rs. 15.97 Crores (from 2.02 Crores in 2007 to 17.99 Crores in 2012) The highest percentage increase (3046%) has been for Sinod kumar Shakya of BSP from Dataganj constituency. His assets rose from 9.60 lakhs in 2007 to 3.01 Crores in 2012. He is followed by R A Usmaani of SP from Nighasan constituency with a percentage increase of 1500% (9.20 lakhs in 2007 to 1.47 Crores in 2012) and Mehboob Ali of SP from Amroha constituency with an increase of 1391% (31.20 lakhs in 2007 to 4.65 crores in 2012).

ITR and Pan-7th phase:

Uttar Pradesh Election Watch analyzed affidavits of 325 out of the 962 candidates contesting the 7th Phase of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. Out of the above 325 candidates, Om Kumar (BSP) has the highest annual income at Rs. 1.18 Crore followed by Kavita Singh (BJP) at Rs. 1.02 Crore, Iqbal (BSP) at Rs. 93.15 Lacs and Neeraj Kushwaha (BSP) at Rs. 84.18 Lacs as per their last filed Income Tax Returns. A total of 117 candidates (36%) out of the 325 candidates analyzed by the Uttar Pradesh Election Watch have declared that they have never filed income tax returns. Out of the 117 candidates analyzed who have never filed income tax returns, BJP has the maximum number of candidates 25 (42% of the 60 candidates analyzed) followed by Peace Party with 20 (44% of the 45 candidates analyzed), SP with 19 (32% of the 60 candidates analyzed), JD(U) with 18 (69% of the 26 candidates analyzed), INC with 15 (29% of the 51 candidates analyzed), BSP with 9 (15% of the 60 candidates analyzed) who have never filed ITR. Top 3 candidates with maximum assets but who have never filed IT returns are Vinay Tiwari of SP contesting from Gola Gokrannath has the highest total assets of Rs. 5.46 crores, followed by Kunwar Sarvesh Kumar of BJP from Thakurdwara with assets of Rs. 4.34 crores and Ashish Yadav of SP from Shekhupur with Rs. 4.11 crores respectively. 52 (16%) candidates have not declared their PAN details of which Peace Party has the maximum number of candidates (14 out of 45) who have not declared their PAN details. JD(U) has 9 out of 26, SP has 7 out of 60, BJP has 7 out of 60, INC has 7 out of 51, Bundelkhand Congress has 4 out of 5 and RLD has 1 out 10, BSP has 2 out 60 candidates analyzed who have not declared their PAN card details. Top three candidates with maximum assets but not declared their PAN card details are Kunwar Sarvesh Kumar of BJP contesting from Thakurdwara constituency has the highest assets with worth Rs. 4.34 Crores followed by Naseer Ahmed Khan of SP from Muradnagar with assets of Rs. 3.48 crores and Rafatulla of BJP from Sambhal with Rs. 2.55 crores respectively.