Central idea: The article provides an overview of Sections 123 (2) and Section 123 (4) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. It highlights how the section makes it illegal for candidates who have been convicted of certain offenses to contest elections to Parliament and state legislatures.
Recent context: Promise of Freebies
- Recently, the Supreme Court directed to look into prayers for reconsidering its 2013 judgment in ‘S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu’ Case.
- The court held that promises of freebies cannot be termed a corrupt practice. However, the matter is still yet to be decided.
Illicit Practices under the RPA, 1951
- Under the provisions of the Act, an elected representative can be disqualified if convicted of certain offences on grounds of-
- Corrupt practices
- Failing to declare election expenses
- Interests in government contracts or works
What amounts to Corrupt Practices?
- Section 123 of the Act defines ‘corrupt practices’: It includes 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’: 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.
- Section 123 (4) extends ambit of “corrupt practices”: It covers the intentional publication of false statements which can prejudice the outcome of the candidate’s election.
What practices has the court held as corrupt practices in the past?
- Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lacchi Ram, 1995: The encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited, the court stated while adding that the same is clear from Section 123(3). However, even as far back as 1955, the Apex Court in Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya Case upheld the constitutional validity of Section 123 (3).
- SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994: In this case, otherwise held secularism to be a part of the ‘basic structure’, the court said, “whatever the attitude of the State towards the religions, religious sects, and denominations, religion cannot be mixed with any secular activity of the State.”
- Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen, 2017: In 2017, a seven-judge constitution bench of the apex court held that an election will be annulled if votes are sought in the name of a candidate’s religion, race, caste, community, or language, as per Section 123 (3) which prohibits the same.
Attempt UPSC 2024 Smash Scholarship Test | FLAT* 100% OFF on UPSC Foundation & Mentorship programs
