Case Studies On Electoral Fraud, Vote Buying, And Intimidation
Electoral fraud refers to illegal interference with the electoral process, including:
Manipulating votes
Bribing voters (cash, goods, alcohol, services)
Intimidation or coercion
Booth capturing
Fake voting or impersonation
Tampering with electoral rolls or ballot boxes
Legal Framework (India)
Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951
Section 123(1) – Bribery
Section 123(2) – Undue influence (intimidation)
Section 123(3) & (3A) – Appeal to religion, race, caste
Section 123(4) – False statements about candidates
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 171B – Bribery
Section 171C – Undue influence
Section 171F – Offences related to elections
Courts treat electoral crimes as a threat to democracy, and judgments often uphold purity of elections.
CASE STUDIES (More than 5) WITH DETAILED ANALYSIS
*1. Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975, SC) — Electoral Malpractice by a Sitting PM
Facts:
Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s 1971 Lok Sabha victory from Rae Bareli.
Allegations included:
Misuse of government machinery
Use of government officers during campaigning
Exceeding permissible campaign expenses
Judgment:
Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice under Section 123(7) RPA (use of government servants).
Supreme Court upheld parts of the verdict.
Significance:
One of the most famous electoral fraud cases.
Led to the Emergency (1975) after PM lost her seat.
Reinforced that no leader is above the electoral law.
*2. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017, SC) — Vote Solicitation on Caste/Religion
Facts:
Use of caste/religion-based appeals during elections in Maharashtra.
Judgment:
Seven-judge bench ruled:
Any appeal seeking votes based on religion, caste, race, community, or language is corrupt practice under Section 123(3) RPA.
Significance:
Clarified that identity-based political appeals equal electoral fraud.
Strong stance against communal or casteist mobilisation.
*3. Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla (1975, SC) — False Election Expenses
Facts:
Candidate allegedly concealed actual election expenditures by using “volunteers” who were paid secretly.
Judgment:
SC held that hiding or manipulating election expenses is corrupt practice.
Even if third parties incur expenses, they are attributable to the candidate.
Significance:
Strengthened oversight on funding and spending, central to electoral fraud.
*4. N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952, SC) — Electoral Process Sanctity
Facts:
Illegal rejection of nomination papers.
Judgment:
Election disputes must be handled only through election petitions after the election, not during the process.
Significance:
Protects continuity and integrity of the electoral process.
Ensures disputes do not derail elections in real time.
*5. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013, SC) — Criminalisation of Politics
Facts:
Challenge to provisions allowing convicted MPs/MLAs to retain office pending appeal.
Judgment:
SC struck down Section 8(4) RPA.
Any elected representative convicted for 2+ years is disqualified immediately, even during appeal.
Significance:
One of the strongest judicial actions to curb criminal elements influencing elections.
*6. State of UP v. Ram Adhar (1982, SC) — Vote Buying Through Gifts
Facts:
Candidate distributed gifts and money to voters in rural areas.
Judgment:
SC declared it bribery and corrupt practice under both IPC 171B and RPA 123(1).
Significance:
Reinforced that even small gifts with intent to influence votes count as fraud.
*7. Hariram v. State of Bihar (2000, Patna HC) — Booth Capturing
Facts:
Politically backed group forcibly entered polling booths, seized ballot boxes, and cast votes.
Judgment:
Court imposed heavy sentences and declared the election void.
Significance:
Recognizes booth capturing as extreme election fraud threatening democracy.
*8. Election Commission of India v. State of Haryana (2005, SC) — Intimidation of Voters
Facts:
Reports that ruling party used police and local authorities to intimidate voters.
Judgment:
SC ordered re-polling in the affected booths.
Asserted that free and fair elections are part of Article 324 constitutional duty of the EC.
Significance:
Strong acknowledgment of the Constitutional role of Election Commission.
*9. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002, SC) — Transparency to Prevent Fraud
Facts:
Whether candidates must disclose criminal history, assets, etc.
Judgment:
SC mandated compulsory disclosure of:
Criminal cases
Assets/liabilities
Educational qualification
Significance:
Reduced fraudulent concealment of background.
Empowered voters with informed electoral choices.
Comparative Analysis (Based on Cases)
| Crime Type | Judicial Interpretation | Key Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Vote Buying | Even small gifts or money constitutes bribery | Ram Adhar, Raj Narain |
| Election Expenses Fraud | Concealed, fake, or third-party expenses treated as corrupt practice | Kanwar Lal |
| Booth Capturing | Serious criminal offence; elections can be cancelled | Hariram |
| Intimidation / Undue Influence | Use of threats, police pressure, or political muscle invalidates election | ECI v. Haryana |
| Communal/Caste Appeals | Strictly prohibited; election may be voided | Abhiram Singh |
| Criminal Candidates | Disqualification strengthened | Lily Thomas |
| Misuse of Government Machinery | Government resources used for elections amount to fraud | Raj Narain |
Judicial Principles from These Cases
Purity of Elections is Paramount — elections must be free of bribery, coercion, and manipulation.
Even Slight Influence = Corrupt Practice — courts look at intent, not just magnitude.
Electoral Fraud Threatens Democracy — courts impose strict penalties.
Transparency & Accountability — candidates must provide full disclosures.
State Machinery Cannot Be Misused — using government resources is electoral misconduct.
Voter Freedom — voters must be able to vote without fear or inducement.
Conclusion
The above cases collectively show that courts treat vote buying, electoral fraud, and voter intimidation as serious attacks on democratic integrity. Judicial interpretation consistently supports:
Transparency
Free and fair elections
Zero tolerance for bribery or intimidation
Accountability for candidates and officials
RELATED Blog
comments