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. (150 words)
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. (150
words)
Introduction
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)
lays down provisions to ensure free and fair elections. Section 123 of the Act
defines “corrupt practices.”
Body
1. Corrupt Practices under RPA, 1951:
- Bribery:
Offering or accepting gratification to influence votes.
- Undue
Influence: Interference with a voter’s free will,
including threats, coercion, or misuse of position.
- Appeal
to Religion, Caste, or Language: Seeking votes on
communal grounds.
- False
Statements: Publishing damaging misstatements about
candidates.
- Excess
Expenditure: Spending beyond the prescribed election
limit.
- Misuse
of Official Machinery: Use of government resources for
electioneering.
If proved, such practices can result in setting aside
of election results and disqualification of candidates.
2. Assets and Undue Influence:
- Legislators’
increase in assets disproportionate to income is primarily
addressed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- By
itself, possession of unexplained wealth is not a corrupt practice
under RPA.
- However,
if such wealth is used to bribe, induce, or exercise patronage to
influence electoral choice, it may qualify as “undue influence” under
Section 123.
3. Judicial Position:
- In
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the
Supreme Court mandated disclosure of assets and liabilities of candidates
to promote voter awareness.
- In
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court held that
legislators convicted of corrupt practices or serious offences face
immediate disqualification.
- Thus,
courts stress that asset disclosure enhances transparency, but
disproportionate assets alone do not constitute corrupt practice unless
linked to electoral interference.
Conclusion:
While rising assets raise ethical and corruption concerns, they fall outside
RPA unless employed to unduly influence voters. Electoral reforms must
strengthen the asset disclosure regime to safeguard democracy from both
covert corruption and overt electoral malpractice.
Comments
Post a Comment