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.
See the answer frameworkWhat to write, point by point
How to write this answer
- Discuss Cover the main aspects, with arguments on more than one side.
- Analyse Break the topic into its parts and explain how they connect.
For Polity: Quote Articles, landmark cases and committees by name; end with a balanced way forward.
For this question: Quote section 123(2) on undue influence, then bring in Lok Prahari (2018) for the second half.
Explain what the Representation of the People Act, 1951 treats as corrupt practices, then analyse whether a legislator's unexplained growth in assets (or that of associates) can count as 'undue influence' and so as a corrupt practice.
Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lists the corrupt practices that can make an election void when proved in an election petition under section 100. They are acts that corrupt the free choice of the voter.
Corrupt practices under section 123
- Bribery (123(1)): Any gift, offer or promise of gratification to induce a person to stand or not stand, or an elector to vote or not vote; gratification is not limited to money.
- Undue influence (123(2)): Any direct or indirect interference, or attempt to interfere, with the free exercise of any electoral right, including threats of injury or social ostracism and the use of divine displeasure.
- Others include appeals on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language (123(3)), promoting enmity between classes (123(3A)), false statements about a candidate's personal character (123(4)), hired vehicles to carry voters, excess election expenditure, help from government servants, and booth capturing.
The case for treating unexplained assets as undue influence
- In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (16 February 2018) the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of the assets and sources of income of candidates and their associates is a corrupt practice under the head 'undue influence' in section 123(2).
- The Court also said that assets of legislators and their associates growing out of proportion to their known incomes is constitutionally impermissible and may eventually amount both to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undue influence under section 123.
- Reason: Voters cannot exercise a free and informed choice if a candidate hides wealth that may come from abuse of office; and wealth gained this way can be used to sway voters.
Limits of that view
- Section 123 speaks of interference with an electoral right during an election; assets gathered between elections are not, by themselves, an act of interference.
- The Court left it to the legislature to declare undue accretion of assets a ground of disqualification and to set up a permanent mechanism to monitor legislators' assets; it said no writ can compel Parliament to make a law.
Unexplained wealth undermines the voter's informed choice, and the Supreme Court has brought its concealment within undue influence. A clear statutory rule and a standing mechanism to watch legislators' assets would make the principle enforceable.
Study the topic: Delimitation in India and the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951
Sources: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (India Code), section 123; Supreme Court of India: Lok Prahari v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 784 of 2015, judgment of 16 February 2018