Criminal Liability For Electoral Bribery In Provincial Elections
Legal Framework
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)
Section 123(1): Defines bribery as offering any gratification—money, gifts, employment, or other material benefit—to a voter to induce them to vote or refrain from voting.
Section 100: Allows the High Court to declare an election void if the winning candidate is found guilty of a corrupt practice, including bribery.
Section 101: Sets disqualification periods for candidates found guilty of corrupt practices.
Penal Consequences
Criminal liability may arise under the IPC for fraud or inducement linked to elections.
Prevention of Corruption Act can apply if bribery involves elected officials acting for undue gain.
Key Principles
Candidates are responsible for acts of their agents.
Timing matters: acts must be connected to the election (after nomination).
Material advantage must be intended to influence the vote.
Case Studies
Case 1: Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (1975, Allahabad High Court)
Facts:
Raj Narain challenged the 1971 Lok Sabha election of Indira Gandhi, alleging corrupt practices including misuse of government machinery and inducement of voters.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Sections 123(1) and 123(7) of RPA (bribery and undue influence).
Court Findings:
Court found certain acts of government misuse amounted to corrupt practices.
Bribery allegations were partially unproven, but other corrupt practices led to voiding of the election.
Significance:
Landmark case showing that elections can be voided for corrupt practices, even if bribery itself is not fully proved.
Reinforced the principle of accountability in elections.
Case 2: Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed (Haryana, 1974)
Facts:
Rahim Khan challenged the Haryana Assembly election result alleging the winner offered a vehicle as inducement to voters.
Legal Provisions:
Section 123(1) RPA – bribery.
Court Findings:
Court held that the gift of a vehicle alone did not prove bribery as there was no evidence it influenced voting.
Other corrupt practices, such as appeals based on religion, were upheld.
Significance:
Established that “gratification” must be intended to influence votes.
Not all gifts or inducements constitute bribery.
Case 3: Sita Soren v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2024)
Facts:
Sita Soren, Jharkhand MLA, was accused of accepting bribes to vote in favor of a Rajya Sabha candidate.
Legal Provisions:
RPA and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Court Findings:
Legislators do not enjoy immunity for accepting bribes under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.
Bribery of legislators undermines democracy and is punishable.
Significance:
Clarified that elected representatives in provincial/state legislatures can face criminal liability for accepting bribes.
Case 4: Ludhiana West By-Election Allegation (Punjab, 2025)
Facts:
Candidate accused of distributing school bags, utensils, inverters, and ration items to voters.
Legal Issue:
Whether distribution of gifts/materials constitutes bribery under Section 123 RPA.
Court Findings/Status:
Election Commission and police investigation initiated.
Allegations pending, showing modern forms of electoral bribery.
Significance:
Shows bribery includes material gifts, not just cash.
Enforcement is critical to deter such practices.
Case 5: Karnataka High Court – Pre-Nomination Bribery (2025)
Facts:
Candidate allegedly offered gifts before filing nomination.
Legal Issue:
Whether pre-nomination gifts constitute bribery under Section 123(1) RPA.
Court Findings:
Gifts given before nomination do not amount to corrupt practices.
Corrupt practice provisions apply only after formal nomination.
Significance:
Clarifies timing of liability for electoral bribery.
Important guidance for candidates in provincial elections.
Case 6: Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh (1976)
Facts:
Candidate’s agent allegedly offered gun licenses to voters in exchange for votes.
Legal Issue:
Whether gun licenses constitute material advantage (“gratification”) under Section 123(1) RPA.
Court Findings:
Court held gun licenses did not constitute a material advantage; bribery charges failed.
Election was not voided based on this allegation.
Significance:
Reinforces threshold for bribery: material advantage must be linked to influencing the vote.
Shows difficulty in proving bribery in provincial/state elections.
Key Principles from Cases
Candidate and agent liability: Candidates are responsible for acts of their agents.
Material advantage required: Not all gifts constitute bribery.
Timing matters: Only acts after nomination typically qualify.
Criminal and electoral consequences: Election may be voided; candidate may face disqualification and prosecution.
Modern bribery: Includes material goods, services, and indirect inducements, not just cash.
RELATED Blog
comments