Introduction

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) defines “corrupt practices” to safeguard free and fair elections. However, its narrow scope raises questions on whether disproportionate asset growth of legislators amounts to undue influence.

Body

Corrupt Practices under RPA, 1951

• Bribery: Offering gratification to induce voting behaviour (Section 123(1)).
• Undue Influence: Interference with free exercise of electoral rights (Section 123(2)).
• Appeal to Religion, Caste, Community: Using identity-based appeals to secure votes (Section 123(3)).
• Publication of False Statements: Spreading falsehoods to affect candidate’s prospects (Section 123(4)).
• Hiring of vehicle: Hiring or using vehicles to freely convey voters (except the candidate, family, or agent) to or from polling stations is prohibited. (Section 123(5))
• Exceeding Expenditure Limits: Spending beyond prescribed ceilings (Section 123(6))

Highlighting the scenarios where a disproportionate increase in assets amounts to “undue influence” and consequently constitutes corrupt practice, and also examining it from the other perspective.

Yes, it can, when linked to voter interference

• Bribery through cash-for-votes: If unexplained assets are used to fund bribes to voters (cash-for-votes), it becomes bribery and can also amount to undue influence.
• Threats or coercion: If the wealth is used to threaten, coerce, or buy off community leaders to sway voters, it interferes with free choice.
• Gifts by agents: If associates deploy the assets to distribute inducements, gifts, for the candidate, it is a corrupt practice.
• Funded defamation: If the money finances fake news or defamatory material to manipulate voters, it can fall under corrupt practices.

No, not by itself

• Only asset rise: A mere increase in assets, even large or sudden, is not automatically “undue influence.”
• No interference in voters’ will:  “Undue influence” requires interference with the voter’s free will. Asset growth alone does not show that.
• Out of domain: Disproportionate assets are primarily an issue under anti-corruption, benami, income-tax, or Prevention of Corruption Act proceedings, not per se an RPA corrupt practice.
• Evidence: Without proof that the wealth was used to bribe, coerce, or otherwise manipulate voters, it will not qualify as a corrupt practice.

Conclusion
The Representation of the People Acts keep elections free and fair by stopping bribery, threats, and lies that distort voter choice and results. It protects voter freedom and ensures clean contests that reflect the genuine public will, eventually holding democratic values intact.

DOWNLOAD PDF