Case Law On Vote Buying And Election Violence

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🧾 1. Introduction

Vote buying and election violence undermine the integrity of democratic elections. These acts involve:

Offering money, gifts, or favors to voters to influence their choice (vote buying)

Physical intimidation, assault, or disruption to influence voters or candidates (election violence)

Such acts are criminal offenses under Indian law, and courts have consistently intervened to uphold free and fair elections.

⚖️ 2. Legal Framework

2.1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section	Description	Punishment
Section 171B IPC	Bribery in elections (vote buying, offering inducements)	Imprisonment up to 1 year, fine, or both
Section 171C IPC	Undue influence or intimidation of voters	Imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both
Section 171D IPC	Personation at elections	Imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both
Section 171E IPC	Punishment for bribery or undue influence	Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine, or both

2.2. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)

Section 123 RPA: Corrupt practices include vote buying, bribery, intimidation, booth capturing, and violence.

Section 125 RPA: Courts can declare elections void if corrupt practices are proven.

Section 131–136 RPA: Punishment for corrupt practices; candidates can be disqualified for 6 years.

⚖️ 3. Key Case Laws

(1) Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

Facts:
The case involved questions on the validity of elections and corrupt practices, including undue influence.

Held:

Supreme Court recognized that any use of force, intimidation, or bribery constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123 RPA.

Courts can invalidate elections where such acts are proven.

Significance:

Established that vote buying and intimidation are serious offenses that can nullify elections.

(2) Mohd. Shafeeq v. Union of India (2015)

Facts:
Voters were allegedly given cash and gifts to influence their votes in a state assembly election.

Held:

Election Tribunal found that Section 171B IPC (bribery in elections) was violated.

Candidate was disqualified under Section 8A of RPA.

Significance:

Reinforced that monetary inducement to voters is criminal and invalidates election results.

(3) Gajanan Nandgaonkar v. Election Commission of India (2009)

Facts:
Booth capturing and physical intimidation of voters were reported in municipal elections.

Held:

Court observed that force or coercion to influence votes falls under Section 171C IPC and Section 123(1)(a) RPA.

Violations can lead to criminal prosecution and cancellation of election results.

Significance:

Demonstrated that election violence can directly affect election outcomes and is punishable.

(4) T.N. Seshan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991)

Facts:
The Chief Election Commissioner challenged widespread election malpractices, including vote buying and intimidation.

Held:

Supreme Court emphasized strict enforcement of anti-bribery provisions.

Noted that election officials have a duty to ensure free and fair elections.

Significance:

Set precedent for active enforcement against vote buying and protecting voter rights.

(5) Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh (2012)

Facts:
Complaint of corrupt practices in parliamentary elections, including bribery and undue influence, was filed.

Held:

Court held that bribery and inducement under Section 123 RPA are sufficient grounds to challenge an election.

Candidate’s election can be declared void if proven.

Significance:

Reinforced judiciary’s power to disqualify candidates involved in corrupt electoral practices.

(6) S. Khurana v. State of Delhi (2010)

Facts:
During assembly elections, some voters were coerced to vote for certain candidates using threats and intimidation.

Held:

Delhi High Court held that intimidation under Sections 171C & 123(1) RPA constitutes corrupt practice.

Perpetrators and candidates facilitating it can face criminal charges.

Significance:

Clarified that both direct intimidation and indirect threats are prosecutable.

(7) R. Sanjeev Kumar v. Election Commission of India (2014)

Facts:
A candidate allegedly distributed money and liquor to voters in rural elections.

Held:

Court held that offering cash or gifts to influence votes violates Section 171B IPC and Section 123(1) RPA.

Candidate was disqualified, and criminal proceedings were initiated.

Significance:

Reinforced that vote buying, in any form, attracts disqualification and criminal liability.

🏛️ 4. Principles Established by Case Law

Vote buying and bribery are corrupt practices:

Any inducement to voters, in cash or kind, is criminal under IPC and RPA.

Election violence is a serious offense:

Physical intimidation or coercion is punishable and can invalidate elections.

Candidate accountability:

Both candidates and agents can be prosecuted for corrupt practices.

Preventive and punitive measures:

Election Commission has authority to seize materials, monitor campaigns, and cancel elections in cases of malpractice.

Judiciary oversight:

Courts can intervene to protect the sanctity of elections and disqualify offenders.

📚 5. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Offense	Law Invoked	Outcome / Principle
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)	Undue influence	Section 123 RPA	Corrupt practices can nullify elections
Mohd. Shafeeq v. UOI (2015)	Vote buying	Sections 171B IPC, RPA	Candidate disqualified
Gajanan Nandgaonkar v. ECI (2009)	Booth capturing	Sections 171C IPC, RPA	Election invalidated, criminal prosecution
T.N. Seshan v. Tamil Nadu (1991)	Vote buying/intimidation	Sections 171B, 123 RPA	Enforcement of anti-bribery
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012)	Bribery	Section 123 RPA	Election challenge allowed
S. Khurana v. Delhi State (2010)	Intimidation	Sections 171C, 123 RPA	Criminal liability of candidates/agents
R. Sanjeev Kumar v. ECI (2014)	Cash and gifts to voters	Sections 171B IPC, 123 RPA	Disqualification and prosecution