Discuss the corrupt practices for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze…

Question

Discuss the corrupt practices for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute undue influence and consequently a corrupt practice.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

Section 123 of the RPA, 1951 lists corrupt practices such as bribery, undue influence, divisive appeals and booth capturing, and disproportionate assets amount to undue influence only when concealed or used to sway voters. Lok Prahari (2018) held that non-disclosure of assets and their sources is undue influence.

**Introduction**

ADR found 93% of 2024 Lok Sabha winners to be crorepatis, sharpening concern over wealth that outgrows known income. Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines corrupt practices, raising the question whether unexplained wealth is "undue influence".

**Corrupt Practices under Section 123**

SKETCH: tree | Corrupt Practices, Section 123 RPA
- Inducing votes
  - Bribery, Undue influence
- Divisive appeals
  - Religion, caste, enmity
- Misusing the State
  - Govt servants, Booth capturing
- Money and lies
  - Excess expenditure, False statements

1. **Bribery and undue influence**: Section 123(1) bars gratification for votes, and 123(2) bars any interference with the free exercise of an electoral right.
2. **Divisive appeals**: Appeals on religion, caste or language are barred, and Abhiram Singh (2017) extended this to the religion of voters as well as candidates.
3. **Consequences**: A High Court finding voids the election under Section 100, with disqualification of up to six years under Section 8A.

**Disproportionate Assets and Undue Influence**

1. **Case for inclusion**: Lok Prahari (2018) reasoned that unexplained growth in legislators' assets suggests abuse of office and held that non-disclosure of assets and sources amounts to undue influence.
2. **Voter's right to know**: ADR (2002) and PUCL (2003) tied asset disclosure to free choice under Article 19(1)(a).
3. **Case against**: Section 123(2) needs interference with the vote itself, and lawful wealth cannot be presumed coercive.
4. **Better remedy**: Illicit enrichment is punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before a criminal court with proper evidence.

**Conclusion**

Disproportionate assets alone are not undue influence, but their concealment or use to sway voters is. Asset monitoring and time-bound anti-corruption trials would protect free and fair elections, a basic feature since Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).

Discuss the corrupt practices for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute undue influence and consequently a corrupt practice.

Model answer

Practise this question

Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act6 questions

Ghissu