The Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines a set of “corrupt practices” (Section 123), violation of which can lead to disqualification of a candidate (Section 8).
Corrupt Practices under RPA, 1951
Bribery – Offering or accepting gratification (money, jobs, gifts, entertainment) to induce candidature, withdrawal, or voting/refraining from voting. Eg- Distribution of cash or liquor during elections.
Undue Influence – Interference (direct or indirect) with the free exercise of electoral rights through threats, inducements, or pressure. Eg- Threats of social boycott or misuse of official authority.
Appeal on Identity Grounds – Seeking votes based on religion, caste, community, race, or language, or using religious/national symbols.
Promotion of Enmity – Spreading hatred between groups for electoral gains.
False Statements – Publishing knowingly false information about a candidate’s personal character or conduct to prejudice election prospects.
SC in 2023 held that providing false information about electoral Candidates Qualification is not a Corrupt Practice under RPA, 1951.
Free Conveyance of Voters – Hiring vehicles/vessels for voters’ free transport to polling stations.
Excessive Expenditure – Spending beyond limits prescribed under Section 77.
Misuse of Official Machinery – Seeking help from government servants such as gazetted officers, judges, police, armed forces.
Booth Capturing – Seizing polling stations or ballot boxes by force.
Glorification of Sati or Regressive Practices – Using such appeals for electoral advantage.
Assets of Legislators and the Question of Undue Influence
Since 2004, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, MPs must declare their assets and liabilities to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) within 90 days of taking their seat.
The Supreme Court, in Lok Prahari case, mandated that candidates disclose not only their assets but also the sources of income of themselves, their spouses, and dependents.
It directed the Centre to amend election rules and nomination forms, and sought a permanent mechanism to probe disproportionate asset growth of legislators.
The Court held that non-disclosure of assets or income sources amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123, RPA 1951.
A legislator’s or associate’s increase in assets disproportionate to known income is also a matter of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act (1988) or criminal misconduct under IPC/Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Section 8 (3) of the Act states that if an MP or MLA is convicted for any other crime and is sent to jail for 2 years or more, he/ she will be disqualified for 6 years from the time of release.
Thus, the disqualification provisions ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.