Case Law On Election Violence And Intimidation Prosecutions

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. K. Basappa v. Union of India (1953) – Use of Threats During Elections

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 274

Facts:

The case involved allegations that a candidate used threats and intimidation to influence voters in the Karnataka Assembly elections.

Issue:

Whether coercion or intimidation of voters constitutes a violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) and attracts criminal liability.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that threats, intimidation, or coercion aimed at influencing voters invalidate the election under Section 123(1) and 123(2) RPA.

Criminal prosecution under IPC Sections 503 (criminal intimidation) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) is maintainable.

Significance:

Affirmed the fundamental right of voters to free choice.

Established that candidates or supporters using fear to sway votes can face both civil and criminal liability.

2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Election-Related Violence and Rule of Law

Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918

Facts:

The case primarily dealt with the dismissal of state governments but also highlighted political violence and coercion during elections.

Issue:

Whether widespread violence and intimidation by political groups affect the validity of elections and invite criminal prosecution.

Judgment:

Supreme Court emphasized that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy.

Any act of intimidation or use of force to influence voters violates Sections 123(1), 123(2), and 123(3) of the RPA.

Courts can invalidate elections and refer cases for criminal prosecution under relevant IPC provisions.

Significance:

Reinforced the principle that political authority cannot be established by coercion.

Provided judicial support for prosecuting election violence systematically.

3. Mohd. Tahir v. State of U.P. (1990) – Intimidation and Threats to Voters

Citation: AIR 1990 SC 1287

Facts:

During Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, certain candidates allegedly threatened voters and polling officers to ensure their victory.

Issue:

Extent of criminal liability for intimidating voters and election officials.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 503 and 506 applies in electoral contexts.

Threatening polling officers to influence election outcomes amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 RPA.

Elections influenced by intimidation can be set aside.

Significance:

Strengthened accountability for direct threats against voters or officials.

Recognized that both criminal prosecution and electoral remedies are necessary to prevent election fraud.

4. Nilkanth Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) – Electoral Violence During Polling

Citation: AIR 2002 MP 154

Facts:

Polling agents and voters faced physical attacks and harassment by political workers to influence voting in Madhya Pradesh.

Issue:

Whether election-related violence constitutes criminal liability and grounds for annulment.

Judgment:

High Court held that physical intimidation of voters and election officials violates IPC Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons), and Sections 123 and 125 RPA.

Court emphasized that perpetrators are liable for both criminal prosecution and civil electoral penalties.

Significance:

Clarified that physical violence at polling booths is actionable both criminally and electorally.

Reinforced mechanisms to protect voters’ rights during elections.

5. Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005) – Voter Intimidation and Election Malpractice

Citation: 2005 (3) SCC 635

Facts:

During elections in Bihar, candidates allegedly used fear and threats to manipulate voting patterns.

Issue:

Whether intimidation that influences voter behavior constitutes a corrupt practice and can lead to prosecution.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that threats, inducement, or coercion during elections are corrupt practices under Section 123(1), 123(2), and 123(3) of RPA.

Criminal prosecution under IPC Sections 503 and 506 is maintainable.

Significance:

Clarified that electoral corruption and criminal intimidation often overlap.

Highlighted the dual mechanism: civil annulment of elections and criminal prosecution of offenders.

6. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) – Election Violence Reporting and Accountability

Citation: AIR 2003 SC 2244

Facts:

PUCL filed petitions highlighting widespread violence and voter intimidation during elections in several states.

Issue:

Role of courts in ensuring prosecution and preventive measures for election violence.

Judgment:

Supreme Court mandated prompt investigation and prosecution of election-related violence under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323, 324, 506, and RPA provisions.

Emphasized that state machinery must act proactively to prevent election intimidation.

Significance:

Judicial recognition that preventing election violence is both a criminal and constitutional obligation.

Strengthened procedural safeguards to prosecute offenders promptly.

7. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) – Media Reports and Preventive Action Against Election Violence

Citation: AIR 2006 SC 3127

Facts:

Case dealt with media coverage of election violence and the role of law enforcement in preventing intimidation.

Issue:

Whether criminal liability extends to those instigating violence indirectly, such as through media or public statements.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that incitement to violence or intimidation of voters is punishable under IPC Section 505 (statements creating public mischief) and 506 (criminal intimidation).

Courts can order preventive measures against candidates or parties using inflammatory tactics.

Significance:

Expanded understanding of election intimidation to include verbal and media-based incitement.

Reinforced criminal liability for indirect methods of voter coercion.

🧭 Key Legal Provisions on Election Violence and Intimidation

Offence	Statute / IPC Section	Punishment / Consequence
Threatening or intimidating voters	IPC 503, 506	2–3 years imprisonment + fine
Physical assault during elections	IPC 323, 324	1–3 years imprisonment + fine
Attempt to murder / grievous harm	IPC 307, 325	7–10 years imprisonment
Corrupt practices / influencing votes	RPA 1951 Sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(3)	Election can be declared void; fines and imprisonment
Incitement to violence / public mischief	IPC 505	1–3 years imprisonment + fine