Research On Electoral Integrity And Penal Justice In Nepal
1. Case: Undue Inducement by Candidate Promising Jobs (Rautahat, 2022)
Facts:
During an election campaign in Rautahat, a candidate publicly promised voters free employment abroad if elected. This promise was seen as an attempt to influence voter behavior with material benefits.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Election (Offences and Punishment) Act provisions prohibiting candidates from offering gratification or economic benefits to voters.
Breach of the election code of conduct which bars inducements.
Outcome:
The Election Commission investigated and referred the case to police for prosecution.
The candidate faced potential penalties of imprisonment up to one year or fines.
Significance:
Demonstrates the importance of preventing economic inducements in elections.
Shows how the penal system intersects with electoral oversight.
2. Case: Local Politician Violating Election Code of Conduct (2022)
Facts:
A ward chairperson in a municipality conducted unauthorized public programs to promote a candidate and used social media to influence voters during the campaign period.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Election Code of Conduct, which regulates campaign behavior.
Administrative enforcement authority of the Election Commission.
Outcome:
The candidate was fined, and in some cases warned about further violations.
No criminal prosecution, but the administrative action reinforced compliance.
Significance:
Illustrates that electoral integrity is not only about criminal offences but also adherence to behavioral rules.
Shows the role of regulatory oversight in maintaining fair campaigns.
3. Case: Resham Chaudhary – Candidate with Pending Criminal Charges (Kailali, 2017)
Facts:
Resham Chaudhary, accused in a serious mass violence case, contested and won parliamentary elections despite pending criminal charges.
Legal Issues:
Eligibility of under-trial accused persons to contest elections.
Representation integrity: constituency lacked active representation due to his suspension.
Outcome:
Election remained valid; Chaudhary could not perform parliamentary duties until conviction.
Highlighted a loophole in electoral laws regarding candidates under trial.
Significance:
Shows conflict between penal justice (serious criminal charges) and electoral integrity.
Exposes gaps in the legal system regarding candidate eligibility.
4. Case: Candidate Annulled Due to Life Sentence (Dhungel, 2013)
Facts:
A candidate was convicted of murder and sought to contest the Constituent Assembly election.
Legal Issues:
Candidate eligibility under law prohibits persons with life-sentence convictions from contesting.
Outcome:
Election Commission annulled his candidature prior to the election.
Reinforced the principle that serious convictions disqualify candidates.
Significance:
Demonstrates enforcement of eligibility laws to preserve electoral integrity.
Highlights the preventative role of penal justice in elections.
5. Case: Failure to Submit Election Expenditure Details (2023)
Facts:
Thousands of candidates failed to submit mandatory campaign finance reports following provincial elections.
Legal Issues:
Transparency and accountability under the Election Offences Act.
Ensuring compliance to prevent undue financial influence in elections.
Outcome:
Fines were imposed on non-compliant candidates.
Some faced potential disqualification from future elections if they did not comply.
Significance:
Highlights financial transparency as a crucial aspect of electoral integrity.
Shows administrative enforcement as a complement to criminal prosecution.
6. Case: Candidate Using State Resources (2022)
Facts:
A local politician used government vehicles and public funds for personal campaign purposes.
Legal Issues:
Misuse of public resources violates election law and code of conduct.
Constitutes both an administrative violation and potential criminal offence.
Outcome:
Election Commission issued fines and referred the matter for criminal investigation.
Raised awareness about misuse of state machinery in elections.
Significance:
Reinforces principle that state resources must not influence electoral outcomes.
Shows the combination of administrative and criminal oversight.
Key Insights from These Cases
Economic inducements and promises remain a major threat to fair elections.
Behavioral compliance is monitored administratively; failure can result in fines.
Candidate eligibility gaps allow under-trial accused to contest, undermining integrity.
Financial transparency is critical; failure to report expenditures leads to penalties.
Use of state resources for campaigns is a recurring violation.
Enforcement mechanisms combine administrative action and potential criminal prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments