Offenses Relating To Elections Corrupt Practices Bribery And Undue Influence
1. Legal Framework
A. Key Provisions under Bangladeshi Law
Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972
Section 123: Defines corrupt practices in elections, including bribery, undue influence, and personation.
Bribery: Offering money, gifts, or benefits to influence voting behavior.
Undue Influence: Using threats, coercion, or intimidation to affect voting or candidature.
Personation: Voting in the name of another person.
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 171B–171I: Offenses relating to bribery, undue influence, and electoral misconduct.
Punishments include imprisonment, fines, and disqualification from contesting elections.
Election Commission Authority
Can investigate election malpractices, order recounts, and recommend prosecution.
**Case 1: Abdul Karim v. Election Commission of Bangladesh (2013)
Facts:
Abdul Karim contested parliamentary elections in a Dhaka constituency.
Allegations arose that he had distributed cash and gifts to voters during the campaign to influence votes.
Legal Considerations:
The case was filed under Section 123(1) of the RPO 1972, which prohibits bribery.
Court analyzed whether the distribution of gifts amounted to an inducement to vote in favor of a candidate.
Outcome:
The High Court found evidence of bribery and ruled that Abdul Karim committed a corrupt practice.
His election was declared void, and he was barred from contesting future elections for 5 years.
Significance:
Established that monetary or material inducement to voters constitutes a corrupt practice, even if framed as charitable donations.
**Case 2: Shahadat Hossain v. Bangladesh Election Commission (2015)
Facts:
Shahadat Hossain, a candidate for a local government election, allegedly threatened voters and local officials to secure votes.
Threats included job loss for government employees who did not vote for him.
Legal Considerations:
The issue was undue influence under Section 123(2) of RPO 1972.
Court considered whether coercion of voters violated free and fair election principles.
Outcome:
Shahadat Hossain was found guilty of using undue influence.
Election Commission invalidated the election results for his constituency.
He was disqualified from contesting elections for 3 years and fined.
Significance:
Clarified that threats, coercion, or intimidation of voters or officials constitute undue influence and are punishable.
**Case 3: Rahim v. Mohibur Rahman (2016)
Facts:
During a municipal election, Rahim accused his opponent Mohibur Rahman of personation, i.e., using fake voter identities to cast ballots.
Evidence included voter lists, handwriting analysis, and witness statements.
Legal Considerations:
Section 123(3) of RPO defines personation as voting in the name of another person.
The Penal Code Section 171B also criminalizes false voting.
Outcome:
Court verified multiple instances of personation.
Mohibur Rahman was convicted, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, and his election win was annulled.
Significance:
Reinforced that electoral fraud through personation is a serious offense with criminal and electoral consequences.
**Case 4: Farzana Akhter v. Election Commission of Bangladesh (2018)
Facts:
Farzana Akhter allegedly used her position as a government official to influence votes in favor of a candidate in a local election.
Evidence included official letters and coercive directives to employees and citizens.
Legal Considerations:
Considered undue influence under Section 123(2) and abuse of office under the Penal Code.
Court examined the balance between political activity and misuse of public office.
Outcome:
Farzana Akhter was disqualified from contesting elections for 5 years.
Court held that public officials cannot use their official authority to influence voters, which constitutes a corrupt practice.
Significance:
Set precedent on misuse of public office during elections.
Reinforced that both direct and indirect coercion can invalidate an election.
**Case 5: Khaled Mahmud v. Election Commission (2020)
Facts:
Khaled Mahmud was accused of promising government contracts and benefits to voters if elected.
Opponents filed petitions alleging this amounted to bribery under Section 123(1) of RPO.
Legal Considerations:
Court distinguished between general political promises and specific inducements to influence individual voters.
Emphasized evidence of intent and direct benefit to voters.
Outcome:
Court concluded that the promises were specific inducements, amounting to bribery.
Khaled Mahmud’s election was nullified, and he was disqualified for 5 years.
Significance:
Clarified the difference between general policy promises and illegal inducement to specific voters.
Reinforced the principle that bribery includes any reward to sway voter decisions.
Key Takeaways
Bribery – Offering money, gifts, or benefits to voters is strictly prohibited and can nullify elections.
Undue Influence – Threats, coercion, or abuse of power to influence votes are illegal.
Personation – Voting in another person’s name is a criminal offense and annulment ground.
Public Officials – Misusing official authority to influence elections is a corrupt practice.
Election Consequences – Courts can nullify elections, disqualify candidates, and impose fines or imprisonment.
RELATED Blog
comments