Personation At Elections As A Crime
Personation at Elections
Personation at elections refers to the illegal act of impersonating another voter, i.e., a person votes by pretending to be someone else. This is a serious electoral offense because it undermines the democratic process and the principle of free and fair elections.
Legal Provisions:
In India, personation is primarily dealt with under Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Personation is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offense.
Penalty: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.
Essential Ingredients of Personation at Elections
False impersonation – the accused must have falsely personated another elector.
Voting or attempting to vote – the accused must have voted or attempted to vote.
Knowledge or intention – the accused should know that the person they are impersonating is a different person or has no right to vote in that constituency.
Case Law Analysis on Personation at Elections
Case 1: R. v. Teylor (1878) 3 QBD 177
Issue: What constitutes personation at elections?
Facts: The accused voted in place of another person during the election.
Judgment: The court held that actual voting by a person who is not the rightful elector constitutes personation. Mere attempt to vote under a false name is also an offense.
Significance: This is a foundational case establishing the principle that personation involves voting by impersonating another elector.
Case 2: Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1966 SC 1754)
Issue: Can personation be proved by circumstantial evidence?
Facts: The accused was charged with personation though there was no direct eye-witness. The case relied on circumstantial evidence.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that personation can be proved by circumstantial evidence, provided the chain of evidence is complete and consistent.
Significance: This case broadened the scope for proving personation, accepting circumstantial evidence as valid.
Case 3: Bharat Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1982)
Issue: Whether the voter must have the intent to deceive?
Facts: The accused claimed he did not know he was impersonating another person.
Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that intention or knowledge is an essential ingredient of personation. Mere mistake or ignorance is not sufficient for conviction.
Significance: This case emphasized mens rea (criminal intent) as an essential element in personation.
Case 4: Narayan v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 120)
Issue: Whether personation can lead to invalidation of election?
Facts: Personation incidents were reported in a particular constituency.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that if personation is proved and is widespread or significant, it can vitiate the election process and lead to the election being declared void.
Significance: This case illustrates the gravity of personation and its impact on the validity of elections.
Case 5: Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 725)
Issue: Does the mere presence of multiple voting or personation necessarily invalidate the entire election?
Facts: The accused alleged multiple voting and personation.
Judgment: The court ruled that isolated incidents of personation may not invalidate the entire election unless the personation substantially affected the election result.
Significance: This case established that the scale of personation is key to the consequences on the election outcome.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| R. v. Teylor (1878) | Personation involves actual or attempted voting impersonation |
| Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi Admin. | Personation can be proved by circumstantial evidence |
| Bharat Singh v. State Punjab | Intent or knowledge is essential for conviction |
| Narayan v. Union of India | Widespread personation can invalidate elections |
| Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India | Scale of personation affects election validity |
Additional Points:
Personation vs False Voting: Personation is impersonating a genuine elector. Voting falsely or fraudulently without impersonation is a different offense.
Proof: Identification marks, voter lists, testimonies of presiding officers, and surveillance can be used to prove personation.
Preventive Measures: Electoral officers take various steps like voter ID cards, electoral roll verification, and using electronic voting machines to curb personation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments