Election Offences
Election offences refer to illegal acts committed before, during, or after elections that affect the fairness, integrity, or transparency of the electoral process.
They are primarily governed by:
Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Election Rules
Constitution of India (Articles 324, 329(b))
1. TYPES OF ELECTION OFFENCES
A. Corrupt Practices (RPA, 1951, Section 123)
Bribery
Undue influence
Use of religion, caste, community
False statements about candidates
Booth capturing
Improper use of government machinery
B. Electoral Fraud
Impersonation
Fictitious voting
Tampering with ballot papers or EVMs
C. Illegal Expenditure and Gift Distribution
Exceeding expenditure limits
Distributing cash/gifts/alcohol to voters
D. Promoting Enmity (IPC Sections 153A, 295A)
During election speeches.
E. Misuse of Media / Paid News
F. Publishing False Results or Misleading Information
2. LANDMARK CASE STUDIES (DETAILED)
Below are seven major cases, each explaining a different election offence category and how courts interpreted it.
CASE 1: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Corrupt practices — misuse of government machinery and election malpractice
Facts:
Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi's 1971 election to Lok Sabha, alleging illegal practices such as use of government facilities and officers during campaign.
Judgment & Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that using government officers as election agents and leveraging government machinery constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of RPA.
It stressed that elections must be completely free from executive influence.
Significance:
A landmark ruling emphasizing separation between State power and electoral competition.
CASE 2: Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (Allahabad High Court, 1975)
(Connected case but separate reasoning)
Offence / Issue: Electoral malpractice — bribery and misuse of position
Facts:
Raj Narain alleged that Indira Gandhi used government vehicles, officers, and state resources during campaign.
Judgment:
Allahabad High Court voided Indira Gandhi’s election, holding her guilty of committing “corrupt practices.”
Found her liable for illegally obtaining assistance of government servants.
Significance:
A historic case where a Prime Minister’s election was set aside for election offences under RPA.
CASE 3: Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017, Supreme Court – Constitution Bench)
Offence / Issue: Using religious, caste, community appeals
Facts:
The dispute involved whether seeking votes in the name of caste, religion, or community violates Section 123(3) of RPA.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that any appeal to religion, race, or caste—of the candidate, opponent, or voters—is a corrupt practice.
The bench expanded the interpretation of “corrupt practice”, making it broad and inclusive.
Significance:
This case is the modern authority on religious appeals in election campaigns, holding them illegal.
CASE 4: Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1995, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Appeal to religion during elections
Facts:
Manohar Joshi, while campaigning, stated that the first Hindu State would be formed in Maharashtra.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the statement qualifies as corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of RPA.
It constituted appeal to religion to influence votes.
Significance:
Key case clarifying that religious nationalism used as a campaign tool constitutes an election offence.
CASE 5: Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Election irregularities, fraud, and interference
Facts:
Allegations were raised that elections were cancelled unlawfully and procedural violations occurred.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Election Commission has wide powers to prevent fraud, corruption, and illegal practices.
Significance:
Strengthened the EC’s authority in preventing and responding to election offences.
CASE 6: Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Improper voting, cross-voting, and electoral corruption
Facts:
Challenge to open ballot system in Rajya Sabha elections aimed at reducing corrupt practices and cross-voting.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld open ballot provisions to curb bribery and vote-selling.
Significance:
The decision validated reforms designed to fight corruption in legislative elections.
CASE 7: Prof. Ramchandra Gohain v. Election Commission of India (1995, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Booth capturing and violence
Facts:
Allegations of booth capturing, intimidation, and obstructing voters.
Judgment:
Court held booth-capturing and preventing free polling are serious election offences, rendering elections invalid.
Reinforced Sections 135A and 135B of RPA dealing with booth capturing.
Significance:
Set strict precedent against violence and coercion during elections.
CASE 8: Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996, Supreme Court)
Offence / Issue: Use of religion and hate speech
Facts:
Bal Thackeray’s speeches appealing to Hindu identity were examined.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held such speeches amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) and 123(3A).
Emphasized that hate speech or communal propaganda is punishable as an election offence.
Significance:
Foundational ruling controlling communal and inflammatory speeches in elections.
3. WHAT THESE CASES COLLECTIVELY ESTABLISH
✔ Elections must be free, fair, and neutral
✔ Religion, caste, or community cannot be used as campaign tools
✔ Use of government machinery for campaigning is illegal
✔ Booth capturing and violence can nullify an election
✔ Paid news, false propaganda, and fraudulent practices are punishable
✔ The Election Commission has wide constitutional powers to prevent offences
4. CONCLUSION
Indian courts have played a fundamental role in interpreting and enforcing laws on election offences. Through landmark cases like:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Abhiram Singh
Mohinder Singh Gill
Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo
Manohar Joshi
…courts ensured that the sanctity of elections is protected and that any act compromising fairness, from bribery to religious appeals, is treated as a punishable offence.
RELATED Blog
comments