Offences Under Representation Of People Act
Overview: Representation of the People Act, 1951
The Representation of the People Act (RPA) is a comprehensive law that governs the conduct of elections in India. It contains provisions related to the preparation of electoral rolls, conduct of elections, qualifications and disqualifications of members of Parliament and state legislatures, corrupt practices, and election offences.
Key Offences Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Bribery (Section 123(1))
Offering money, gifts, or any other valuable benefit to induce a voter to vote or refrain from voting.
Undue Influence (Section 123(2))
Using force, coercion, or threats to influence voters.
False Statements (Section 123(3))
Making or publishing false statements about a candidate’s character or conduct.
Hiring or Procuring Volunteers (Section 123(4))
Hiring or engaging persons to promote or damage the prospects of a candidate by corrupt means.
Appeal on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Community (Section 123(3))
Appealing to voters based on religious, racial, caste, or community grounds to influence votes.
False Election Expenses (Section 125)
Failure to account for election expenses or submitting false election expense statements.
Personation (Section 171E, IPC read with RPA)
Voting in the name of another person.
Detailed Explanation of Select Offences with Case Law
1. Bribery - Section 123(1)
Meaning: Giving or offering any gift, money, or benefit to a voter to induce them to vote for a candidate.
Case Law:
K.C. George v. C. Divakaran (1952)
The Supreme Court held that bribery is proved when the candidate or his agents offer any gift or advantage to a voter to influence his vote. Mere hospitality is not bribery unless it is designed to induce votes.
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
The court emphasized transparency in election funding and curbing bribery to protect the sanctity of elections.
2. Undue Influence - Section 123(2)
Meaning: Threats, coercion, or use of force to influence voting decisions.
Case Law:
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (1978)
The court held that undue influence is more than persuasion; it involves coercion or intimidation which impacts free voting rights.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court held that use of government machinery or officials to intimidate voters amounted to undue influence, which can void election results.
3. False Statements as to Character - Section 123(3)
Meaning: Publishing or circulating false statements about a candidate’s personal character to harm electoral prospects.
Case Law:
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
The court balanced freedom of speech with election laws and held that statements must be verifiably false and made with corrupt intent to amount to an offence.
Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (1975)
False allegations made by Indira Gandhi’s election agent against Raj Narain were held to be corrupt practice affecting the election result.
4. Appeal on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, or Community - Section 123(3)
Meaning: Using caste, religion, or community appeals to influence voters is prohibited.
Case Law:
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
The Supreme Court defined "religious feelings" and said that any appeal to religious sentiments to secure votes violates this provision.
R.M. Valiathan v. Union of India (1967)
The court clarified that not every reference to religion or caste amounts to an offence unless it is made with the intent to influence voting.
5. Failure to Account Election Expenses - Section 125
Meaning: Candidates are required to submit an accurate account of election expenses; failure or false reporting is an offence.
Case Law:
K.C. Antony v. Union of India (1979)
The Supreme Court underlined the importance of transparency in election finances to ensure fairness.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002)
Court mandated disclosure of candidates’ election expenditure and assets to curb corruption.
6. Personation - Section 171E IPC read with RPA
Meaning: Voting in the name of another person.
Case Law:
State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh (1993)
Court held that personation seriously undermines the election process and the right of free and fair elections.
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1971)
Personation was held to be a criminal offence that can result in cancellation of votes and election.
Summary Table
| Section | Offence Description | Key Case(s) | Court's Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 123(1) | Bribery (Gifts or money to voters) | K.C. George v. C. Divakaran | Hospitality not bribery unless inducement |
| 123(2) | Undue Influence (Coercion or threats) | Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | Use of force to influence vote voids election |
| 123(3) | False statements about candidate's character | Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi | False statements with corrupt intent void election |
| 123(3) | Appeal on religion, caste etc. | Kedar Nath Singh v. State Bihar | Appeals on religious grounds illegal |
| 125 | False election expenses | K.C. Antony v. Union of India | Transparency in election finances mandatory |
| 171E IPC | Personation (Voting as another person) | State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh | Personation is criminal offence |
RELATED Blog
0 comments