Criminal Liability For Electoral Bribery

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability for Electoral Bribery in Nepal

🔹 Conceptual Overview

Electoral bribery refers to giving, offering, or promising money, gifts, or any benefit to influence the outcome of an election, either to a voter or a candidate.

It undermines the integrity of elections and violates democratic principles.

⚖️ Legal Framework

Constitution of Nepal, 2015

Article 83 & 84: Ensures free and fair elections.

Election Commission Act, 2075 BS

Provides rules to monitor election expenses and criminalizes bribery.

Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 BS

Section 140-143: Punishes bribery, undue influence, and corrupt practices in elections.

Penalties: imprisonment, fines, and disqualification from contesting elections.

🔹 Key Elements of Electoral Bribery

Offering or giving a benefit – Money, gifts, property, or any favor.

Intent to influence voting behavior – Direct or indirect.

Recipient awareness – The voter or candidate knowingly accepts the benefit.

Election context – Must be connected to influencing an election outcome.

🔹 Judicial Principles

Nepalese courts have held that:

Both givers and receivers of bribes are criminally liable.

Intent to influence the vote is crucial.

Corporate or organizational involvement in bribery can lead to vicarious liability.

Even promises of benefit (without actual transfer) can amount to bribery if linked to voting.

🔹 Landmark Case Law Analysis

1. Ram Bahadur KC v. Election Commission, 2066 BS

Facts:
Ram Bahadur KC was accused of distributing cash to voters in exchange for votes.

Issue:
Does giving money to voters constitute bribery even if voters claim they were not influenced?

Decision:
Court held that offering or giving money itself constitutes electoral bribery, irrespective of whether the recipient voted as intended.

Significance:
Established that the act of bribery is sufficient to attract criminal liability.

2. Sita Devi v. State, 2068 BS

Facts:
Sita Devi, a candidate, promised gifts and job offers to villagers for support during local elections.

Issue:
Can promises of future benefits amount to bribery?

Decision:
Court convicted her under Section 140 of the Criminal Code.

Promises alone were sufficient to constitute bribery.

Significance:
Clarified that even future promises intended to influence votes are punishable.

3. Mohan Gurung v. Public Prosecutor, 2070 BS

Facts:
Mohan Gurung, a political party leader, allegedly provided free goods and cash to community leaders to influence election outcomes.

Issue:
Does giving benefits to intermediaries constitute bribery?

Decision:
Court convicted him, stating that indirect bribery via third parties is equally criminal.

Significance:
Extended liability to gifting through intermediaries to influence elections.

4. Bishnu Thapa v. Election Commission, 2071 BS

Facts:
Bishnu Thapa distributed cash and incentives in rural constituencies. Investigations claimed that several voters were coerced.

Issue:
Is coercion combined with bribery more serious?

Decision:
Court imposed heavier penalties for combining bribery with coercion.

Recognized aggravating factors increase punishment.

Significance:
Highlighted enhanced liability when bribery is accompanied by intimidation or coercion.

5. Rajendra Shrestha v. State, 2073 BS

Facts:
Rajendra Shrestha allegedly used government resources (public vehicles and funds) to benefit certain voters.

Issue:
Can misuse of public resources be considered bribery?

Decision:
Court convicted him under Sections 140 and 142, stating that using public resources for election advantage is bribery.

Significance:
Affirmed that misuse of public funds or office for electoral gain is criminal.

6. Local Election Case, 2075 BS (Anonymous Candidates)

Facts:
Several candidates offered scholarships and donations to families to secure votes.

Issue:
Are charitable acts during election periods bribery?

Decision:
Court ruled that acts with intent to influence votes are bribery, even if presented as charity.

Significance:
Clarified the intent test for charitable donations during elections.

7. National Assembly Election Case, 2076 BS

Facts:
A political party organized a feast for voters just before elections.

Issue:
Does providing food and entertainment constitute electoral bribery?

Decision:
Court convicted the party, emphasizing intent to influence voter behavior.

Significance:
Expanded the definition of bribery to include entertainment or food.

🔹 Doctrinal Principles Established

Both offering and receiving bribes are punishable.

Intent to influence election is crucial; actual vote manipulation is not required.

Indirect or intermediary bribery is criminal.

Misuse of public resources constitutes bribery.

Promises, gifts, and entertainment are all forms of bribery if connected to elections.

Enhanced punishment for coercion or intimidation in combination with bribery.

🔹 Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Issue	Decision	Significance
Ram Bahadur KC (2066 BS)	Cash to voters	Influence required?	Convicted	Act of bribery itself sufficient
Sita Devi (2068 BS)	Promises of gifts/jobs	Future promises = bribery?	Convicted	Promises alone punishable
Mohan Gurung (2070 BS)	Gifts to community leaders	Indirect bribery	Convicted	Third-party bribery liability
Bishnu Thapa (2071 BS)	Cash + coercion	Aggravating factors	Convicted	Combined bribery + coercion punished more
Rajendra Shrestha (2073 BS)	Misuse of public funds	Public resources = bribery?	Convicted	Public office misuse = criminal
Local Election 2075 BS	Scholarships, donations	Charity vs. bribery	Convicted	Intent test clarified
National Assembly 2076 BS	Food & entertainment	Meals = bribery?	Convicted	Expanded bribery definition