Q. 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. (150 words, 10 marks)
GS II, PYQ 2025
Introduction
The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 is the cornerstone legislation regulating elections in India. It not only governs the conduct of free and fair elections but also defines "corrupt practices," which, if established, can lead to disqualification of candidates and even annulment of elections.
Corrupt Practices under RPA, 1951
Section 123 of the RPA, 1951 specifies corrupt practices. These include:
-
Bribery – Offering gratification to influence voting.
-
Undue Influence – Direct or indirect interference with a voter’s free exercise of electoral rights.
-
Appeal on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Community or Language – Seeking votes on such divisive lines.
-
Promotion of Enmity – Between classes of citizens on religious, caste, linguistic, or communal grounds.
-
Publication of False Statements – Relating to personal character or conduct of candidates.
-
Exceeding Expenditure Limits – Use of unaccounted or disproportionate election funds.
-
Use of Religious or National Symbols – For soliciting votes.
Assets and Legislators: Issue of Disproportionate Growth
-
The phenomenon of rising assets of legislators and their associates, as revealed in successive elections, raises questions of integrity. ADR reports show that over 88% of MPs (2024 Lok Sabha) are crorepatis, with a sharp increase in declared assets between elections.
-
If such disproportionate growth cannot be explained through lawful income, it falls under the broader concern of criminalization of politics and money power in elections.
Does it Constitute ‘Undue Influence’?
-
Undue influence as per Section 123(2) of RPA is about interference with a voter’s free choice. Mere accumulation of wealth—even disproportionate—does not directly interfere with voting freedom.
-
However, if wealth is used for bribery, inducement, distribution of money, or muscle power, then it directly translates into a corrupt practice.
-
The Supreme Court in cases like Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) has expanded the scope of corrupt practices by focusing on the purity of elections, but asset growth per se cannot automatically be deemed undue influence unless linked to electoral malpractice.
Conclusion
While mere disproportionate increase in assets may not directly qualify as "undue influence," it reflects systemic weaknesses in monitoring financial integrity of legislators. Strengthening disclosure norms, enhancing ECI’s investigative powers, and empowering independent institutions to scrutinize wealth are essential to preserve electoral fairness.
Additional Note for Reference
-
Other Provisions of RPA 1951:
-
Section 8: Disqualification on conviction for certain offences.
-
Section 29B/29C: Political party funding, donations, and reporting.
-
Section 33A/33B: Disclosure of criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
-
Section 62(5): Disqualification of prisoners from voting.
-
-
Reports and Findings:
-
ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) – Rising trend of MPs/MLAs with criminal cases (46% of MPs in 18th Lok Sabha 2024 had declared criminal cases).
-
Law Commission (244th Report, 2014) – Recommended strong action against criminalization of politics.
-
- Supreme Court Judgments –
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): striking down Section 8(4) that allowed convicted legislators to continue in office
ADR vs Union of India (2002): mandating disclosure of criminal records
PUCL vs Union of India (2013): mandating NOTA
Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018): directing parties to publish criminal antecedents of their candidates by print and electronic media and also on their websites along with reasons for selecting such candidates
Comments
Post a Comment