Q. Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice.

Model Answer:

Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 defines “corrupt practices” that can void an election, safeguarding democratic integrity.

1. Corrupt Practices under RPA 1951 (Section 123)

• Bribery: Offering or accepting gratification to influence voting or contesting.
• Undue Influence: Direct/indirect interference with the free exercise of electoral rights (Section 123(2)).
• Identity Appeals: Soliciting votes on grounds of religion, race, caste, or language.
• Malpractices: Publishing false statements, booth capturing, or exceeding prescribed campaign expenditure limits.

2. Disproportionate Assets (DA) as ‘Undue Influence’

• Distinct Statutory Offense: Mere possession of DA is penalized under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but is not inherently “undue influence” under RPA.
• The Lok Prahari Ruling (2018): The Supreme Court clarified that the non-disclosure of DA sources, rather than mere possession, constitutes undue influence.
• Infringing Voter Rights: Concealing DA in Form 26 (Conduct of Election Rules) violates voters’ Right to Know (Article 19(1)(a)), impeding informed choice.
• Electoral Nullification: Failure to disclose income sources for candidates or dependents is a corrupt practice under Section 123(2), rendering the election liable to be voided.

Classifying asset non-disclosure as undue influence strengthens electoral probity, necessitating proactive verification of candidate affidavits by the Election Commission to ensure transparency.