The highest court of India, the Supreme Court (SC) has recently ruled that offering misleading information regarding a candidate’s educational qualifications does not classify as a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) Act 1951. This decision was made on the grounds that voters in India do not base their decision on a candidate’s educational background.
Overview of the Case
This ruling came about when the SC was deliberating on a petition challenging a 2017 decision by the Allahabad High Court. The latter had ruled that declaring false information about a candidate’s educational qualifications did not infringe on the electors’ free electoral rights. The petitioner believed that such an action by the electoral candidate was a corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) and Section 123(4) of the RPA Act 1951. The argument was that by hiding correct information about liabilities and educational qualifications, the candidate was intruding on the voters’ free exercise of electoral rights. Despite the arguments presented, the SC dismissed the petition, reiterating that providing incorrect candidate information does not constitute a corrupt practice.
Understanding ‘Corrupt Practices’ under the RPA Act 1951
As per Section 123 of the RPA Act 1951, ‘corrupt practices’ are defined to include bribery, undue influence, false information, and promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different societal classes. Furthermore, Section 123 (2) focuses on ‘undue influence’, which covers any interference—direct or indirect—with any electoral right by a candidate or his/her agent. This could also involve threats of injury or social expulsion from a caste or community.
Under Section 123 (4), if a candidate knowingly publishes false statements that can prejudice the election outcome, it is also classified as a corrupt practice. If an elected representative is convicted of certain misconducts such as corrupt practices, they can be disqualified under the provisions of the Act.
Past Instances of Corrupt Practices According to the Court
Several past court rulings have shed light on what has been deemed as ‘corrupt practices’. In 2017, the Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen case led to the ruling that if votes were sought based on a candidate’s religion, race, caste, community, or language, the election would be annulled as per Section 123 (3). Similarly, in 1994, during the SR Bommai v. Union of India case, the SC ruled that encroaching upon secular activities with religion was prohibited under subsection (3) of Section 123. However, in the ongoing S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu case from 2022, the court stated that promising freebies cannot be deemed as corrupt practices.
Key Aspects of the Representation of People Act 1951
The RPA Act 1951 plays a major role in regulating the conduct of elections in India. It outlines the qualifications/disqualifications for membership in the houses and provides mechanisms to curb corrupt practices and other offences. The Act also clears any confusion about election-related disputes.
The importance of this Act lies in ensuring smooth functioning of Indian democracy. It restricts the entry of individuals with criminal backgrounds into representative bodies, thus aiming to decriminalize politics in India. Additionally, the Act mandates each candidate to declare their assets, liabilities, and maintain an account of election expenses. This helps in enhancing accountability and transparency. Moreover, the Act prohibits corrupt practices like booth capturing, bribery, and promoting enmity, thereby ensuring the legitimacy of elections.
UPSC Civil Services – Previous Year Questions (PYQ) on RPA Act 1951
In the context of RPA Act 1951, consider this question from UPSC Civil Services 2021:
“In India, there is no law restricting candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies. In 1991, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies. As per existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye-elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her winning in all the constituencies. Which statement(s) is/are correct?”
The answer was “(b) 2 only” as the Representation of People Act 1951 was amended in 1996 to restrict a candidate from contesting in more than two seats in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.