Explained: The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 And What Is A Corrupt Practice Under It

The Supreme Court recently ruled that providing false information about a candidate's educational qualifications is not considered a corrupt practice under the Representation of People's Act 1951. The court stated that voters in India do not choose candidates based on their educational qualifications.

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition that challenged a 2017 ruling by the Allahabad High Court. The high court had held that the declaration of false information pertaining to educational qualifications did not interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of the electors.

The petition argued that the electoral candidate committed a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(2) by not disclosing his liabilities and correct educational qualifications in his affidavit of nomination.

It also claimed that a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4) was committed by the candidate in knowingly publishing a false statement of fact about his character and conduct to influence the outcome of his election.

However, the SC declared the petition "null and void," stating that providing false information about a candidate's qualifications cannot be considered a "corrupt practice" under Sections 123(2) and Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Unsplash/Representational Image

The Representation of the People Act, 1951

The Representation of the People Act 1951 is responsible for regulating elections in India, which includes setting criteria for membership in houses, implementing measures to prevent corrupt activities, and outlining procedures for resolving disputes related to elections.

This act is crucial in maintaining a functional Indian democracy as it prevents individuals with criminal backgrounds from serving in representative bodies, promotes transparency and accountability of candidates, and prohibits corrupt practices like bribery and booth capturing.

Furthermore, only political parties that are registered under section 29A of the RPA Act, 1951 are permitted to receive electoral bonds, which helps to ensure transparency in funding for elections.

Unsplash/Representational Image

Corrupt practices under this act

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of the Act.

Section 123 of the Act includes bribery, undue influence, spreading false information, and promoting enmity or hatred between different groups for election purposes as corrupt practices.

Bribery involves offering or accepting gratification to induce a person to vote for or against a particular candidate. Undue influence involves using direct or indirect means, such as threats or inducements, to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights by voters.

Spreading false information refers to intentionally publishing false statements that could prejudice a candidate's prospects in the election while promoting enmity or hatred refers to any attempt to create hostility between different groups based on religion, race, caste, community, or language.

Unsplash/Representational Image

Section 123 (2) of the Act deals specifically with undue influence. It defines it as any direct or indirect interference or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights by a candidate or his agent, or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. This could include threats of injury, social ostracism, or expulsion from any caste or community.

Section 123 (4) of the Act extends the ambit of ¡°corrupt practices¡± to the intentional publication of false statements which can prejudice the outcome of the candidate¡¯s election.

The Act also provides for the disqualification of elected representatives on specific grounds, including corrupt practices, failure to declare election expenses, holding interests in government contracts or works, or holding an office of profit under the government.

What are the previous judgements?

The Indian Supreme Court has made several important rulings regarding corrupt practices in the past.

In 2017, in the case of Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen, the court held that seeking votes in the name of a candidate's religion, race, caste, community, or language is a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1951. The court emphasized that such appeals can lead to "polarization and communal hatred" and can "disrupt the secular fabric of the nation."

BCCL/Representational Image

In another important case, SR Bommai v. Union of India in 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited. The court cited subsection (3) of Section 123 of the RPA Act, 1951, which defines corrupt practices in elections, to support its ruling. The court held that the use of religion to gain votes is a corrupt practice that threatens the secular nature of Indian democracy.

More recently, in 2013, the Supreme Court in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v State of Tamil Nadu held that promises of freebies by political parties during elections constituted a corrupt practice. However, in 2022, the court reconsidered its 2013 judgment and held that promises of freebies cannot be termed a corrupt practice. The court stated that such promises cannot be seen as a form of bribery and that they do not affect the free and fair conduct of elections. However, the matter is still under consideration and the final decision is yet to be made.