GS Paper 2 10 marks · 150w 9 min Hard
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.
Subtopic: Constitution & Polity · Representation of the People Act & corrupt practices
How to structure your answer
Introduction → Enumerate corrupt practices under Section 123, RPA 1951 with consequences (Sections 100, 8A) → Define undue influence under Section 123(2) → Apply Krishnamoorthy (2015) and Lok Prahari (2018) to disproportionate asset growth → Distinguish mere asset increase from concealment or false affidavit → Conclusion
Detailed model answer
204 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 enumerates 'corrupt practices' which, if proved, void the election under Section 100 and can disqualify the candidate for up to six years under Section 8A.
Corrupt practices under Section 123
- Bribery — gratification to induce candidature or voting.
- Undue influence — direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any electoral right (Section 123(2)).
- Appeals on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language and promotion of enmity (Sections 123(3), 123(3A)), read strictly in Abhiram Singh (2017).
- False statements about a candidate's personal character; free conveyance of voters; expenditure beyond Section 77 limits; obtaining assistance of government servants; booth capturing.
Disproportionate assets as undue influence
- Voters' right to know candidates' assets flows from Article 19(1)(a) (Union of India v. ADR, 2002).
- Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015): suppression of material information in the election affidavit interferes with free voter choice, amounting to undue influence.
- Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) extended this logic — mandating disclosure of sources of income of candidates, spouses and associates, and monitoring of unexplained asset growth of legislators.
Hence, a disproportionate increase in assets is not by itself a corrupt practice; but when concealed or falsely declared in Form 26, it vitiates free electoral choice and constitutes undue influence — a corrupt practice under Section 123(2).
What an examiner expects to see
- Section 123, RPA 1951 lists corrupt practices: bribery, undue influence, appeals to religion/race/caste/community/language, promoting enmity, false statements on personal character, free conveyance of voters, expenditure beyond Section 77 limits, assistance of government servants, booth capturing.
- Consequences: election declared void under Section 100(1)(b); disqualification up to six years under Section 8A on the Election Commission's opinion given to the President.
- Undue influence (Section 123(2)) means direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any electoral right by the candidate, his agent, or any person with the candidate's consent.
- Union of India v. ADR (2002): the voter's right to know assets, liabilities and antecedents of candidates flows from Article 19(1)(a) — the doctrinal bridge to undue influence.
- Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015): suppression of material information in the affidavit interferes with the voter's free choice and constitutes undue influence, hence a corrupt practice.
- Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018): mandated disclosure of sources of income of candidates, spouses and associates, and flagged unexplained disproportionate asset growth of legislators for monitoring.
- Nuance the examiner rewards: asset increase per se is not a corrupt practice; it becomes undue influence only when concealed or falsely declared — false affidavits are separately punishable under Section 125A, which is not itself a corrupt practice.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) — seven-judge bench's strict reading of Section 123(3)
- Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015) — non-disclosure of criminal antecedents held to be undue influence
- Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) — sources-of-income disclosure and asset-growth monitoring
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) — right to know
- ADR analyses showing multi-fold asset growth of re-elected MPs and MLAs
Terminology to weave into the answer
Section 123 RPA 1951undue influencefree exercise of electoral rightForm 26 election affidavitvoters' right to knowdisproportionate assets