Offences related to Elections under IPC

Meaning of offences related to Elections

The Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) lays down provisions that define various offences related to elections. Offences related to Elections include various corrupt practices such as bribery, undue influence, personation, and other fraudulent activities that are aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. These provisions aim to ensure free and fair elections by penalizing such offences.

Provisions for offences related to Elections

Some of the important offences relating to elections in the IPC are described below:

Bribery: According to Section 171B of the IPC, bribery refers to the offering, giving, accepting or soliciting of any undue advantage or gift as a reward for, or with a view to, influencing the election result.

Undue influence: Section 171C of the IPC, 1860 defines undue influence as the use of force, coercion, or pressure to induce a person to vote in a particular manner or to refrain from voting.

Personation: Section 171D of the IPC defines personation as pretending to be someone else to cast a vote or to interfere with the right of another person to vote.

Illegal payments in connection with an election: Section 171E of the IPC makes it an offence to make illegal payments in connection with an election, such as payment of money or providing any other advantage for the purpose of inducing someone to vote or refrain from voting.

False statement in connection with an election: Section 171F of the IPC, 1860 makes it an offence to make a false statement in connection with an election, such as publishing false news or making false statements about a candidate or political party.

These provisions are aimed at ensuring free and fair elections and promoting transparency and accountability in the electoral process. Any person found guilty of these offences can face imprisonment, fines, or both.

Bribery under Section 171B

Bribery is defined under Section 171B of the Indian Penal Code as the offering, giving, accepting, or soliciting of any undue advantage or gift as a reward for, or with a view to, influencing the election result. This provision covers a wide range of activities that are aimed at influencing the electoral process, including the offering of bribes to voters, candidates, or election officials.

Bribery is considered a corrupt practice that undermines the integrity of the electoral process and is therefore penalized under the IPC. The provision is aimed at ensuring free and fair elections by preventing the undue influence of money or other benefits on the electoral outcome.

Any person who is found guilty of bribery under Section 171B can face imprisonment, fines, or both. The punishment may vary based on the severity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. The objective of this provision is to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that the outcome reflects the genuine will of the voters.

The key elements of Section 171B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are as follows:

Offering, giving, accepting, or soliciting: This provision covers a wide range of activities related to bribery, including the offering of bribes, the giving of bribes, the accepting of bribes, and the soliciting of bribes.

Undue advantage or gift: The key element of bribery under Section 171B is the offering, giving, accepting, or soliciting of an undue advantage or gift. This could be in the form of money, goods, or any other form of reward that is intended to influence the election result.

Influence on election result: The central purpose of Section 171B is to prevent any undue influence on the election result. The provision aims to ensure that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, without the influence of bribes or other corrupt practices.

Punishment for bribery under Section 171E:

Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code outlines the punishment for the offence of bribery under Section 171B. According to the provision, anyone who is found guilty of bribery, as defined in Section 171B, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may range from 6 months to 2 years, or with a fine, or with both.

Undue influence at an election of Section 171C

Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the offence of undue influence at an election. According to the provision, it is an offence to use undue influence or to cause fear or alarm to voters in order to affect the result of an election.

The key elements of Section 171C are as follows:

Use of undue influence: The provision prohibits the use of any form of undue influence, such as the use of force, coercion, or intimidation, in order to affect the outcome of an election. This includes the use of physical force, threats, or any other form of pressure that is intended to influence the voters.

Causing fear or alarm: The provision also prohibits the causing of fear or alarm among voters in order to affect the outcome of an election. This could be in the form of spreading false information or making false threats, for example.

Personation at elections under Section 171D

Section 171D of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of personation at elections. According to the provision, it is an offence to impersonate another person with the intent of voting in their place or to prevent them from voting.

The key elements of Section 171D are as follows:

Impersonation: The provision prohibits the act of impersonating another person with the intent of voting in their place or to prevent them from voting. This could be in the form of using someone else’s identity to cast a vote, or preventing the rightful voter from casting their vote.

Intent: The provision requires the intent to impersonate another person in order to be considered a violation. This means that the act of impersonation must be deliberate and intentional, and not a mistake or an accident.

Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election

Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 outlines the punishment for the offences of undue influence at an election (Section 171C) and personation at an election (Section 171D). According to the provision, anyone who is found guilty of either of these offences shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may range from 6 months to 2 years, or with a fine, or with both.

The punishment for undue influence or personation at an election under Section 171F is intended to serve as a deterrent against the corrupt practices that can influence the outcome of an election. The provision is designed to ensure that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, without the influence of undue influence or impersonation.

In addition to the punishment under Section 171F, a person who is found guilty of undue influence or personation at an election may also face other penalties, such as disqualification from holding public office, debarment from participating in future elections, or forfeiture of assets. 

These penalties may be imposed in addition to the punishment outlined in Section 171F and are intended to serve as a further deterrent against undue influence and personation in the electoral process.

False statement in connection with an election

Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of making false statements in connection with an election. According to the provision, it is an offence for anyone to make a false statement with the intention of affecting the result of an election.

The key elements of Section 177 are as follows:

False statement: The provision prohibits the making of false statements with the intention of affecting the result of an election. This could include making false statements about a candidate, their qualifications, their political views, or other relevant information.

Intent: The provision requires the intent to affect the result of an election in order to be considered a violation. This means that the false statement must be made with the deliberate intention of influencing the outcome of an election, and not by mistake or by accident.

Illegal payments in connection with an election

Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offence of illegal payments in connection with an election. According to the provision, it is an offence for anyone to make or accept a payment that is illegal or forbidden under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The key elements of Section 171F are as follows:

Illegal payment: The provision prohibits the making or accepting of any payment that is illegal or forbidden under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This could include payments for votes, gifts or other forms of inducement intended to influence the outcome of an election.

Intent: The provision requires the intent to influence the outcome of an election in order to be considered a violation. This means that the payment must be made or accepted with the deliberate intention of affecting the result of an election, and not by mistake or by accident.

Failure to keep election accounts

According to Section 171-I of the IPC:

“Whoever being required by any law for the time being in force or any rule having the force of law to keep accounts of expenses incurred at or in connection with an election fails to keep such accounts shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.”

 Representation of the People Act, 1951

Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with the offence of failure to keep election accounts. According to the provision, candidates and political parties must maintain proper accounts of their election expenses and submit a report of their election expenses to the Election Commission of India within a specified timeframe after the conclusion of the election.

The key elements of Section 77 are as follows:

Maintenance of accounts: The provision requires candidates and political parties to maintain proper accounts of their election expenses, including the details of all contributions received and the expenses incurred during the election.

Submission of report: The provision requires candidates and political parties to submit a report of their election expenses to the Election Commission of India within 30 days of the declaration of the election results.

Landmark Judgments for offences related to elections

The landmark cases dealing with offences related to elections are:

E Anoop v State of Kerala, 2012

The petitioner allegedly appeared at the polling station at Mokeri Government U.P. School in Peringalam constituency, changed his name, and presented himself in the polling booth as Kuttikkattu Pavitharan. He did so in order to obtain a voting paper, despite the fact that he was not the person he claimed to be, nor was he a member of that constituency/booth. The court found him guilty of personation under Sections 171D and 171F.

Veeraghavan v. Rajnikanth, 1997

Mr. Rajnikanth is a well-known film actor with a large fan base throughout India, particularly in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, a Supreme Court lawyer, accused him of wielding undue influence over people because, on the eve of the election, the respondent gave a tele-campaign presentation in which he urged voters to accept Rs 500 or Rs. 1000 from the petitioner while still voting for him.

The question was whether this would fall under IPC, 1860 Sections 171B, which deals with bribery, and 171C, which deals with undue influence.

The speech, as translated, stated that the voters of Tamil Nadu could not be swayed by these tactics and could not be corrupted; therefore, if the opponent offered money as a bargain for votes, accept it without hesitation, but exercise their legal rights freely because the people of Tamil Nadu could not be bought.

According to the Court, the respondent never advised in his speech to demand and receive a bribe. The offending speech wasn’t so bad, and there was no mandate or imposition of restraint on voters to refrain from doing what they wanted. Because the relevant sections of the IPC were not applicable, the respondent was found not guilty of any offence and the case was dismissed.

Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh, 1975

In this case, the respondent was elected as a Member of Parliament from a Punjab constituency. The petitioner claimed that at least 15,000 invalid votes were cast, resulting in the respondent being declared elected, and that the accused allegedly distributed large sums of money to Harijans under the guise of assisting them in the construction of Dharamshalas, as well as gave out several gun licences as bribes to induce voters to vote for them.

The appellant contended that this gratification was a corrupt practice of bribery and that voters’ free legal rights had been influenced and tampered with.

Since there was no evidence regarding the bargaining of votes in exchange for gun licenses, the issues did not stand ground and the case was dismissed.

Raj Raj Deb vs Gangadhar, 1962

The respondent was the Raja of Puri in Odisha’s younger brother. The petitioner claimed that the appellant improperly used this fact to his advantage during election campaigning in the Satyapadi district, where he claimed to be “Chalanti Bishnu” himself and induced people to vote for him by claiming that if they did not, they would be displeasing Lord Jagannath himself and that every vote cast for him was a vote cast for Lord Jagannath. He threatened Divine and spiritual wrath if his instructions were not followed. Aside from that, he was accused of appealing to the villagers to vote for him on the basis of his caste, Khandayat.

The court ruled that it violated Section 171F.

Conclusion

The Indian Penal Code contains various provisions related to offences related to elections. These provisions cover various forms of corrupt practices, such as bribery, undue influence, personation, false statement in connection with an election, illegal payments, and failure to keep election accounts. The Representation of the People Act, of 1951, can also be used to regulate the conduct of elections and ensure the purity of the electoral process.