QUES . 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. Answer in 150 words.10 marks. UPSC MAINS 2025 GS PAPER 2

HINTS:

Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those, the practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 codifies what amounts to corrupt practices during elections, laying the foundation for free and fair democracy. These include bribery, undue influence, appeals to religion or caste, publication of false statements, and misuse of official machinery.

What are corrupt practices under the RPA, 1951?

Section 123 of the Act – defines corrupt practices 

When a candidate, for the furtherance of his prospects in the election, indulges in certain practices, it can be called corrupt practices. This includes:

bribery, undue influence, false information, and 

promotion or attempted promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language” by a candidate.

Section 123 (1) of the Act – deals with bribery

Bribery refers to offering gratification to voters to induce electoral support. It can be direct, such as cash or gifts, or indirect through promises of employment or welfare.

Section 123 (2) of the Act – deals with undue influence

Undue influence is defined as any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right.

This could also include threats of injury, social ostracism and expulsion from any caste or community.

Moreover, convincing a candidate or an elector that they will become an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure will also be considered as an undue influence. 

The broad scope reflects the intent to preserve voter autonomy. For example in Jamuna Prasad v. Lachhi Ram (1954), undue influence was interpreted widely to include both coercion and subtle interference.

Section 123 (3)

It prohibits the candidate from using their race, caste, community or language for the purpose of seeking votes.

The Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) expanded this to prohibit not only a candidate’s appeals but also those made by supporters or agents

Section 123 (4) of the Act – extends the ambit of corrupt practices

This section includes the intentional publication of false statements which can prejudice the outcome of the candidate’s election.

Section 123 (5) and Section 123 (7) – Misuse of official machinery

Using government vehicles, public funds, or official premises for campaigning is prohibited.

Section 123 (6)

Exceeding election expenditure limits

Section 123 (8)

Booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person.

What practices has the court held as corrupt practices in the past?

In 1955, the Apex Court in Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lacchi Ram upheld the constitutional validity of Section 123 (3).

In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), use of state resources for electioneering was held as corrupt practice leading to annulment of her election.

In Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani (1984), the Court held that distribution of money before elections amounted to corrupt practice.

In 2017, the apex court held that an election will be annulled if votes are sought in the name of a candidate’s religion, race, caste, community, or language, as per Section 123 (3).

In 2022, the SC directed a 3 judge bench to look into its 2013 judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu, where the court held that promises of freebies cannot be termed a corrupt practice.

Does disproportionate asset rise constitute undue influence and consequently a corrupt practice?

RPA doesn’t explicitly list disproportionate assets as corrupt practice. Disproportionate increase in assets by itself does not interfere with voter choice. Hence, such growth is outside Section 123 unless linked to voter manipulation.

However, if such disproportionate assets are used to finance inducements such as cash distribution, liquor supply, or mass gifting during elections then it may amount to bribery or undue influence.

The courts have interpreted undue influence broadly to include interference with free choice. The Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India held that non-disclosure of assets amounts to ‘undue influence’ as it violates voters’ right to make informed choices.

Conclusion

The purpose of Section 123 (‘corrupt practices’) under Representation of the People Act, 1951 is to ensure free and fair elections by preventing candidates or their agents from engaging in such activities that could influence voters through unethical means. However, Representation of the People Act, 1951 narrowly defines corrupt practices. Future electoral reforms must integrate stricter asset scrutiny of the candidates as disproportionate assets undermine electoral integrity and necessitating explicit legal provisions.