Vote Buying Prosecutions
Vote buying is the act of offering money, goods, or favors to voters to influence their electoral choice. It undermines democracy and is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions.
Legal frameworks:
India – Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 171B: Bribery of voters
Section 171E: Punishment for undue influence
Section 123: Corrupt practices
Finland – Criminal Code
Section 14: Corruption in public affairs
Election laws prohibit bribery and undue influence
International Principles – UN Convention against Corruption, OECD guidelines
CASE LAW ANALYSIS
1️⃣ Rajeev Goyal v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 1992)
Facts:
Candidate distributed money to voters during the campaign in a state assembly election.
Election petition filed alleging vote buying.
Charges:
Bribery of voters under Section 171B, RPA 1951
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld election petition.
Candidate disqualified; election declared void.
Court emphasized that even small monetary inducements to voters constitute bribery.
Significance:
Established principle that intent to influence voting via money or gifts = corrupt practice.
Set precedent for annulment of elections due to vote buying.
2️⃣ Harishankar vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2003)
Facts:
Evidence that candidate’s agents distributed gifts and cash to villagers during Panchayat elections.
Charges:
Bribery of voters, undue influence
Judgment:
Court found candidate guilty of vote buying.
Disqualification and bar from contesting elections for six years.
Agents also prosecuted under relevant election laws.
Significance:
Court clarified that agents acting on behalf of a candidate are also liable.
Reinforced the strict liability principle in electoral bribery.
3️⃣ Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (Supreme Court, 2010)
Facts:
Complaints of large-scale cash distribution in Lok Sabha elections.
Charges:
Corrupt practices under Section 123 of RPA 1951
Judgment:
Court issued strict directives for monitoring election expenditures.
Reinforced that vote buying is a criminal offense and can trigger election annulment.
Significance:
Influenced stricter election monitoring.
Highlighted pre-emptive measures to prevent vote buying.
4️⃣ Finnish National Election Authority v. Local Politician (Helsinki District Court, 2014)
Facts:
Local candidate offered small cash gifts to voters in municipal elections.
Reports filed by local citizens.
Charges:
Corruption and undue influence under Finnish Criminal Code Section 14
Judgment:
Candidate convicted; fined €5,000.
Election result not annulled due to limited scale of bribery.
Significance:
Shows proportional punishment in Finland: small-scale vote buying = fine, not annulment.
Reinforces deterrence without full-scale election nullification.
5️⃣ State Election Commission v. Rajesh Sharma (Uttar Pradesh, India, 2015)
Facts:
Candidate allegedly distributed liquor and cash to voters during assembly elections.
Multiple affidavits submitted by voters.
Charges:
Bribery of voters (Section 171B, RPA 1951)
Corrupt practices
Judgment:
Candidate disqualified; election declared void.
Two agents prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment for aiding vote buying.
Significance:
Demonstrates that organized vote buying with multiple agents increases severity.
Indian courts emphasize voiding the election when corruption affects outcome.
6️⃣ Election Commission v. Municipal Candidate (Finland, 2018)
Facts:
Candidate offered grocery vouchers to elderly voters to secure votes.
Charges:
Corruption under Finnish Criminal Code
Judgment:
Candidate fined €7,000.
Required to publicly acknowledge wrongdoing.
Significance:
Reinforces legal accountability for gifts to voters.
Finland focuses on punishment and deterrence, proportional to harm.
7️⃣ Rajasthan State Election v. Local MLA Candidate (India, 2017)
Facts:
Candidate distributed cash through community leaders during campaign.
Charges:
Bribery and corrupt practices under Sections 123 and 171B of RPA 1951
Judgment:
Election petition allowed; candidate disqualified.
Barred from contesting elections for six years.
Significance:
Shows cumulative principle: cash + intermediaries + premeditation = severe penalty.
Courts strictly enforce electoral integrity.
KEY PRINCIPLES FROM VOTE BUYING CASES
Any monetary or material inducement to influence votes = corrupt practice.
Agents acting on behalf of candidates are liable.
Election annulment is common in India for large-scale vote buying; Finland may impose fines for smaller-scale bribery.
Intent to influence votes is enough, even if the election outcome is unaffected.
Punishments include:
Disqualification from elections
Fines and imprisonment
Bar from contesting for multiple years
Pre-emptive monitoring and election vigilance is emphasized to prevent vote buying.
CONCLUSION
Vote buying is treated as a serious criminal offense globally.
In India, it can lead to election annulment, disqualification, and imprisonment.
In Finland, punishment is often proportional: fines and public censure for minor cases.
Courts in both jurisdictions consider intent, scale, and use of agents in determining severity.
These cases collectively reinforce the principle of free and fair elections and strict deterrence against corrupt practices.
RELATED Blog
comments