On February 20, the Supreme Court (SC) said that providing false information about an electoral candidate’s qualifications cannot be considered a “corrupt practice” under Sections 123 (2) and Section 123 (4) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
- The SC observed that no one in India votes for a candidate based on their educational qualifications.
Key points
- In “Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee”, a bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and BV Nagarathna of the SC heard a plea challenging a 2017 Allahabad High Court ruling, dismissing a similarly titled petition to declare the election of a BJP MLA as “null and void”.
- However, the SC refused to interfere with the High Court’s order of dismissal.
- Section 123 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
- Section 123 of the Act defines ‘corrupt practices’ to include bribery, undue influence, false information, and promotion or attempted promotion of “feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language” by a candidate for the furtherance of his prospects in the election.
- Section 123 (2) deals with ‘undue influence’ which it defines as “any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right.”
- This could also include threats of injury, social ostracism and expulsion from any caste or community.
- Convincing a candidate or an elector that they will become “an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure” will also be considered an interference “with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector.”
- Section 123 (4) extends the ambit of “corrupt practices” to the intentional publication of false statements which can prejudice the outcome of the candidate’s election.
- Under the provisions of the Act, an elected representative can be disqualified if convicted of certain offenses; on grounds of corrupt practices; for failing to declare election expenses; and for interests in government contracts or works.
- In 2017, a seven-judge constitution bench of the apex court in “Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen” held that an election will be annulled if votes are sought in the name of a candidate’s religion, race, caste, community, or language, as per Section 123 (3) which prohibits the same.
(Source: Indian Express)
