Corrupt Practices under Representation of People Act

Corrupt Practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Section 123 of the RPA, 1951, exhaustively defines various acts that constitute 'corrupt practices'. These are intended to prevent any undue manipulation or subversion of the electoral process.

• Bribery (Section 123(1)): This involves offering or accepting any gratification, monetary or otherwise, to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting, or to induce a candidate to withdraw from an election.
• Undue Influence (Section 123(2)): Defined as any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. This includes threats of injury, social ostracism, or expulsion from a caste or community.
• Appeal to Religion, Race, Caste, Community, or Language (Section 123(3)): Soliciting votes or promoting feelings of enmity or hatred among different classes of citizens on these grounds for the furtherance of a candidate's election prospects.
• Publication of False Statements (Section 123(4)): The intentional publication of false statements of fact regarding the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate, which can prejudice the outcome of the election.
• Hiring or Procuring Vehicles (Section 123(5)): The hiring or procuring of vehicles by a candidate or their agent for the free conveyance of voters to or from any polling station, except for the candidate themselves or their family members or election agent.
• Incurring or Authorizing Expenditure beyond Prescribed Limit (Section 123(6)): Exceeding the maximum limit of election expenses prescribed by the Election Commission of India. For instance, for Lok Sabha candidates in larger states, the limit is ₹95 lakh, and for Assembly candidates, it is ₹40 lakh (as of March 2024).
• Obtaining Assistance from Government Servants (Section 123(7)): Obtaining or procuring the assistance of government servants for the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election.
• Booth Capturing (Section 123(8)): Forcible occupation of polling stations and preventing legitimate voters from casting ballots.

Disproportionate Assets and 'Undue Influence'

The question of whether an increase in the assets of legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, constitutes 'undue influence' and a corrupt practice under the RPA, 1951, is complex.

• Strict Legal Interpretation: Under a strict interpretation of Section 123(2) of the RPA, 'undue influence' requires a direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of an electoral right. Mere possession of disproportionate assets, without proof of their direct use to sway voters, does not automatically fall under this definition. Disproportionate assets are primarily addressed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with corruption and illicit enrichment.
• Indirect Linkages and Judicial Interpretation: However, judicial pronouncements have recognized indirect linkages. The Supreme Court, in cases like Lok Prahari v. Union of India, has indicated that non-disclosure of assets or substantial unexplained wealth can amount to 'undue influence'. This is because voters have a fundamental right to know about their candidates' financial backgrounds to make informed choices. Concealment of such information interferes with this right, indirectly impacting the free exercise of electoral choice.
• Manifestation of Money Power: Disproportionate assets often translate into significant money power, which can be deployed in elections through:
  • Voter Bribery: Unexplained wealth can be used to fund 'cash-for-votes' schemes, which explicitly constitute bribery under RPA Section 123(1).
  • Illegal Campaign Funding: Funding lavish campaigns, advertisements, or rallies beyond prescribed limits, thereby creating an uneven playing field.
  • Coercion: Using financial muscle to threaten, coerce, or buy off community leaders to influence voters.

While the RPA does not explicitly list disproportionate assets as a corrupt practice, the misuse or concealment of such wealth to influence voters directly or indirectly can be construed as 'undue influence' or other forms of corrupt practices like bribery or exceeding expenditure limits. The challenge lies in establishing this direct nexus with the electoral process.