TOPIC –
INTRODUCTION:
The Indian electoral commission (ECI) is a constitutional body. It was created by the Indian constitution to conduct and regulate elections in the country. Article -324 of the Constitution stipulates that the power to supervise, direct and control elections over the parliament. The state legislatures, the office of the president of India and the office of the vice president of India shall be vested in the electoral commission.
CHAPTER IXA OF THE IPC 1860:
Chapter IXA of the IPC, 1860 contains section 171A to 171I which hold the classification of offences relating to elections:-
SECTION -171A DEFINES THE FREQUENTLY USED TERMS, CANDIDATE AND ELECTORAL RIGHT AS FOLLOWS:-
- Candidate means a person who has been nominated as a candidate at an election.
- Electoral right means the right of a person to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at any election.
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ELECTIONS IN INDIA CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING:-
- Bribery
- Undue influence at elections
- Personation at election
- False statement in connection to the elections
- Illegal payments or unauthorised expenditure
- Failure to keep election accounts.
BRIBERY:-
Section -171B is for bribery in the case of elections. If someone gives gratification to another person with the objective of inducing the other person in order to exercise the electoral right then it is called bribery.
UNDUE INFLUENCE:-
Section -171C states that taking undue influence at the time of elections. This section is used when someone voluntarily influences or interferers with the free exercise for any electoral right. Thus, this person that is said to have committed undue influence at the time of the election.
PERSONATION:-
If a person is an election applies for a voting paper based on votes is said to have committed an offence in the election. The person can be dead, alive or in. Fictitious manner. The person can have voted once in the election under his own name also qualifies for this.
FALSE STATEMENT IN CONNECTION TO THE ELECTIONS :-
To invoke section -171G, it is necessary to show that,
An election was impending.
The accused made or published a statement.
This statement concerned the personal character or conduct of the opposing candidate.
The intention behind publishing the statement was affecting the results of the election.
ILLEGAL PAYMENTS OR UNAUTHORISED EXPENDITURE:-
This section -171H makes all the unapproved and unauthorised payments by the Candidates, illegal. The intention behind enacting this provision is to prevent corruption which is likely to be caused by the Candidates to impact the election results.
FAILURE TO KEEP ELECTION ACCOUNTS:-
By virtue of this provision, all the candidates are required to maintain their accounts and if they fail to do so, they would be punished with a few ne which may extend to 500 rupees. The intention behind enacting this provision is to maintain and check and balance on the expenditure which is being incurred by the Candidates.
| SECTIONS | OFFENCE | PUNISHMENT |
| S – 171E IPC | Bribery | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both or if treated only, fine only. |
| S- 171 F IPC | Undue influence at an election | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both. |
| S- 171D IPC | Personating at an election | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine or both. |
| S-171G IPC | False statement in connection with an election. | Fine |
| S- 171H IPC | Illegal payments in connection with elections. | Fine of 500 rupees. |
| S-171I IPC | Failure to keep election accounts. | Fine of 500 rupees. |
CASE LAWS:-
E ANOOP VS STATE OF KERALA, 2012.
The petitioner had allegedly appeared at the polling station at mokeri government U.P school in peringalam constituency, and changed his name and presented himself as kuttikkattu pavitharan in the polling both. He did so to obtain a voting paper even though he wasn’t the person belonging to that constituency both. The court held him guilty of the offense, of personalion under s-171D and 171F.
VEERAGHAVAN VS RAJINIKANTH 1997:-
The respondent, Mr. Rajnikanth is an established film actor with a massive fan following all over Indian and especially in tamilnadu. The petitioner a lawyer in the supreme court has accused him of exercising undue influence over people as on the eve of the election, the respondent presented a tele campingn presentation where he urged the voters to accept RS. 500 or RS. 1000 from the petitioner, and still not vote for him.
The issue was whether this would attract IPC section -171 B, which deals with bribery and IPC section -171C, which deals with undue influence.
The speech, as translated said that the voters of Tamilnadu, couldn’t be swayed by these tactics and couldn’t be corrupted, therefore, if the opponent offered money as a bargain for voters, do not hesitate and accept it, but still, exercise their legal rights freely as the people of Tamilnadu could not be bought.
The court said that the respondent in the speech never advised to demand and receive a bride. The offending speech wasn’t so offending and it has no trace of mandate or imposition of restraint on the voters to refrain from doing what they wished to do. The said sections of IPC were not applicable and the respondent, was thereby not guilty of any offense and the case was dismissed.
CONCLUSION:-
It is evident that these age-old punishments have become mostly redundant and not that strict to avoid happening of the offences. Every participating candidate in elections participates, intending to win and sees themselves as the most viable option. To work towards this goal, they may adopt unfair means and tamper with the fair mechanism of carrying out elections. Offences relating to elections need to be taken seriously and the punishment revised to ensure a fair elections procedure.
This article written by
RADHA BEERE
References
https://lawcirca.com/offences-related-to-elections/