Corrupt act: In Accordance to the Representation of People Act, 1951

Context

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Sections 123(2) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951, cannot be used to define what constitutes a "corrupt practice".

• The verdict of the supreme court came in relation to a petition regarding false information about an electoral candidate's qualifications.

Probable Question

What is a ‘corrupt act’ according to the Representation of the People Act, 1951? (150 words, 10 marks)

Background to the Supreme Court's decision

• In "Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee," a petition was filed claiming that Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee engaged in "corrupt practice" in violation of Section 123(2) by interfering with voters' ability to exercise their right to vote freely by failing to disclose his liabilities and accurate educational credentials in his affidavit of nomination. 
• It further argued that publishing a false statement of fact about his character and behavior to knowingly influence the result of his election constituted a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4).
• The Allahabad High Court ruled in this case that "the inaccuracy or concealment regarding the respondent's educational qualification did not amount as a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act."

About ‘corrupt practices’ under the RPA, 1951

• Section 123 of the Act defines ‘corrupt practices’ to include 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 for the furtherance of his prospects in the election.
• Section 123 (2) deals with ‘undue influence’ which it defines 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 an interference “with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector.”
• Section 123 (4) extends the ambit of “corrupt practices” to the intentional publication of false statements which can prejudice the outcome of the candidate’s election.
• An elected representative can be disqualified under the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, if convicted of certain offenses; on grounds of corrupt practices; for failing to declare election expenses; and for interests in government contracts or works.

Practices that held corrupt practices in the past

• The Supreme Court of India ruled in "Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen" in 2017 that Section 123 (3) of the RPA forbids candidates from soliciting votes on the basis of a candidate's race, religion, caste, community, or language. If this occurs, the election will be declared invalid.
• However, in the dissenting opinion, CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices UU Lalit and AK Goel said, “To hold that a person who seeks to contest an election is prohibited from speaking of the legitimate concerns of citizens that the injustices faced by them on the basis of traits having an origin in religion, race, caste, community or language would be remedied is to reduce democracy to an abstraction.”
• According to the Supreme Court's decision in "SR Bommai v. Union of India'' (1994), religion cannot be incorporated into any State-sponsored secular activity. The court added that sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 makes it clear that the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited. 
• However, even as far back as 1955, the Apex Court in “Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lacchi Ram” upheld the constitutional validity of Section 123 (3).
• In Collegium v. NJAC (2022), the top court ordered that its 2013 decision in "S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu" be reevaluated in light of the current debate over judge appointments. The judge ruled that freebie promises cannot be referred to as a corrupt practice. However, a decision has not yet been made.

News Source: The Indian Express

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/corrupt-act-representation-of-people-act-1951-8459915/

Frequently Asked Questions

If you want to enhance your IAS preparation and crack the UPSC CSE examination, download the PrepLadder app and get access to the finest study material for UPSC curated by India’s top UPSC faculty.

You can also join our Telegram channel for UPSC coaching and to stay updated with the latest information about the UPSC exam.