Criminal Liability For Electoral Bribery, Corruption, And Vote Rigging
🔹 Concept Overview
Electoral bribery, corruption, and vote rigging undermine the democratic process. Indian law criminalizes such acts to ensure free and fair elections.
Bribery: Offering money, gifts, or favors to influence a voter’s choice.
Corruption: Using official position or public resources to influence electoral outcomes.
Vote Rigging: Manipulating votes through fraudulent means, including ballot tampering, impersonation, or coercion.
🔹 Legal Framework
1. Constitution of India
Article 324 – Supervises and controls elections; empowers Election Commission to ensure free and fair polls.
2. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)
Section 123(1)–(7) – Defines corrupt practices, including bribery, intimidation, promoting enmity, impersonation, and influencing votes through government machinery.
Section 125 – Penalizes corrupt practices with imprisonment, fines, or disqualification.
Section 126 & 127 – Deal with election campaign misconduct and improper influence.
3. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Sections 171B to 171I – Election offences, including bribery, undue influence, and false statements.
🔹 Landmark Supreme Court Cases
1. K. Banerjee v. T.K. Moinuddin (1953)
Citation: AIR 1953 SC 150
Facts:
Banerjee was accused of promising money to voters to secure their votes in a legislative election.
Held:
Supreme Court held that promising financial gain to induce a vote is electoral bribery under Section 123(1) of RPA.
Such acts invalidate the candidate’s election, even if the promise was not executed.
Significance:
First major case emphasizing strict liability for electoral bribery.
Established that intention and offer of inducement are sufficient for criminal liability.
2. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 851
Facts:
In Punjab elections, allegations arose that public funds and official machinery were used to influence voters.
Held:
Supreme Court held that use of public resources for electioneering constitutes corrupt practice.
Affirmed Article 324 powers of the Election Commission to nullify elections tainted by corruption.
Significance:
Reinforced that misuse of official position or government resources is punishable under RPA and IPC.
3. K. Sriharan v. Union of India (1990)
Facts:
Candidate was accused of distributing gifts and cash to local voters.
Held:
Court held that any direct or indirect offer of advantage to influence voting constitutes bribery.
Election nullified due to corrupt practice.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of bribery to include gifts, favors, or promises.
Demonstrated courts’ zero tolerance for vote-buying.
4. Rajbala v. State of Haryana (1993)
Facts:
A candidate allegedly forced villagers to vote under threat of withholding government benefits.
Held:
Supreme Court invoked undue influence under Section 123(2) RPA.
Threatening voters with loss of benefits or coercion qualifies as corruption and electoral malpractice.
Significance:
Highlighted coercion and intimidation as corrupt practices.
Established criminal liability for indirect threats influencing votes.
5. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Emergency Era Case
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
Facts:
Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s election alleging use of government machinery and bribery.
Held:
Supreme Court invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election, holding that government machinery cannot be used to influence elections.
Public officials using power for electoral advantage is corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and Section 125 of RPA.
Significance:
Landmark case showing accountability of even top political leaders for electoral corruption.
Reinforced election integrity principles in India.
6. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
Citation: (2013) 7 SCC 640
Facts:
Disqualification of candidates who committed corrupt practices, including bribery and intimidation, was challenged.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that conviction for corrupt practices leads to disqualification and criminal liability.
Courts can nullify elections if corruption materially affects outcome.
Significance:
Strengthened legal deterrent against bribery and vote rigging.
Ensures speedy accountability and enforcement.
7. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Facts:
Petition for disclosure of criminal antecedents and corrupt practices by candidates.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld mandatory disclosure of criminal and corrupt backgrounds of candidates to voters.
Enhances transparency and accountability in elections.
Significance:
Indirectly deters electoral corruption by empowering voters with information.
Key for combating bribery and malpractice.
🔹 Key Legal Principles from Cases
Strict liability for electoral bribery: Promise, offer, or distribution of gifts/favors is sufficient (K. Banerjee, K. Sriharan).
Misuse of official position is corrupt practice: Use of government machinery or public funds is punishable (Mohinder Singh Gill, Indira Gandhi).
Undue influence/ intimidation: Threats, coercion, or promises of benefit/loss constitute corruption (Rajbala).
Nullification of tainted elections: Elections affected by bribery or corruption can be annulled.
Transparency and accountability: Disclosure of criminal and corrupt practices deters malpractice (Association for Democratic Reforms).
✅ Conclusion
Indian law treats electoral bribery, corruption, and vote rigging as serious criminal offenses. Supreme Court rulings have:
Clarified definitions of corrupt practices under RPA.
Ensured strict liability even without execution of bribe.
Reinforced nullification of tainted elections and disqualification.
Strengthened voter empowerment and transparency to prevent malpractice.
RELATED Blog
comments