India's Supreme Court has ruled that candidates contesting provincial and parliamentary polls must now disclose their wealth and police records, but the debate over how best to keep criminals out of public office continues.

But at least, activists say, the landmark ruling of the court last week finally ordered what politicians have long balked at  the disclosure of any past wrongdoings or criminal charges.

''We fail to understand why the right of a citizen or voter  a little man  to know about the antecedents of his candidate cannot be held to be a fundamental right,'' said a three-man bench of the court in its ruling.

The apex court came into the picture after the government challenged a Nov 2000 order by the lower Delhi High Court directing the Election Commission to seek information on candidates' background, assets and eligibility to become members of parliament or the provincial legislatures.

''Votes cast by uninformed voters would be meaningless,'' the Supreme Court said, directing the Election Commission to find out not only detailed histories of criminal cases but also assets, liabilities and educational qualifications of candidates.

The bench rejected the contention of solicitor-general Harish Salve that the Delhi High Court did not have the power to direct the national Election Commission, a statutory body, to make disclosures of personal profiles mandatory as that was the prerogative of political parties fielding the candidates.

Kamini Jaiswal, counsel for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) that filed the original petition before the Delhi High Court, contended that the same laws that apply to government servants should also apply to politicians since both were regarded as public servants.

Widespread allegation

To the contention that voters had no right to look into the personal affairs of election candidates, the court noted that lately there have been widespread allegations of corruption against persons holding public office.

''In such a situation the question is not of knowing (a candidate's) personal affairs but to have openness in democracy for attempting to cure the cancerous growth of corruption by a few rays of light,'' the benchremarked.

For some years now, there has been public despair at the number of people with criminal backgrounds contesting elections and winning in them.

The Election Commission itself has estimated that one out of six legislators elected to provincial assemblies has known criminal records, but has been helpless to act in the absence of suitable legislation.

''If the political process, which should find answers to criminalisation in society and promote public order, is itself captured by criminal elements then governance is bound to end up in shambles,'' says M S Gill, a former election commissioner.

Leaders from political parties cutting across the ideological spectrum have argued that prohibiting persons charged with offences, though not actually convicted, could lead to misuse of authority and victimisation of political opponents.

Long delays at the overburdened courts while candidates wait to clear their names were another problem. However, legal delays work to the advantage of real criminals who are not disqualified from contesting until actually convicted  and convictions are rare.

Commented A B Bardhan, general-secretary of Communist Party of India (CPI), a politician with a long career as union activist: ''I have had so many police charges filed against me on such charges as causing public disorder that I would never qualify elections if that is made a limitation.''

Ashwini Kumar , Congress party spokesman and lawyer, said the Supreme Court ruling would still not tackle the real problem of corruption and unaccounted money being used to fight elections, or prevent candidates from paying criminal elements to do their dirty work for them.

Jaiwal was confident that putting antecedents of candidates under public scrutiny would act as a serious deterrent to criminal elements entering politics and then subverting the political process. ''At least they would have a sense of shame,'' she said.

Not everyone shares Jaiwal's confidence that exposing criminal backgrounds would deter criminals from trying to enter public life. For one thing, political parties are more interested in the 'winnability' of their candidates than anything else.

''Elections in India are about patronage and caste loyalties rather than about morality,'' says C P Bhambri, who once taught political economy at the Jawharalal Nehru University. ''A criminal background can even be an asset these days,'' he observed.

Private armies

Links between criminality and politics have so grown that Indian President K R Narayanan mentioned it in his customary Aug 15 Independence Day speech two years ago.

''Indeed crime and violence and the links between criminals, politicians and important people in society has become almost an unholy alliance. At every social and political level, there is a crying need to speak out against crime and violence of all kinds. But even such rhetoric is absent,'' the scholarly, mild-mannered president said.

Earlier to the president's observations, an official report by the Intelligence Bureau, the government's sleuthing agency, said criminal gangs have come to enjoy the protection of government functionaries. Their leaders, it said, have been elected to local bodies, state assemblies and the national Parliament and even become minister.

''Resultantly, such elements have acquired considerable political clout, seriously jeopardising the smooth functioning of the administration and the safety of life and property of the common man causing a sense of despair and alienation among the people,'' the Intelligence Bureau report said.

In several states, including northern Uttar Pradesh and eastern Bihar, politicians not only act outside the law but even have large private armies that push the state apparatus into irrelevance, the report, cited by the Delhi High Court, said.

According to social activist Swami Agnivesh, the rot is already so deep that there is little political will to curb it further and possibly complete the criminalisation of politics.

This is because gaining political office brings with it the opportunity to make money through corruption, which in turn comes in handy for further political activity.

Mayawati, who was installed as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, openly auctioned candidatures for her Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Several of the takers had large amounts of unaccounted or black money, made through illegal or even criminal activity to pay for the seats.

Her opponents made no bones about doing the same.