The Jharkhand High Court addressed an appeal by a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly who had been convicted and sentenced by a trial court for committing a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act during an election campaign. The offences stemmed from allegations that the MLA, while campaigning in connection with the 2019 Jharkhand Assembly elections, engaged in activities that ran afoul of the statutory prohibitions on inducement of voters. Specifically, the trial court had found that he had distributed items of value — ostensibly to influence voters — and had thereby violated provisions of the Act designed to ensure free and fair elections.
The trial court convicted the politician for the corrupt practice of offering “free” goods during the campaign and sentenced him to imprisonment along with imposing a fine. Following that conviction, electoral authorities also cancelled his election return, effectively nullifying his victory based on the finding that he had secured votes through impermissible inducements. Aggrieved by both the conviction and the annulment of his election, the MLA challenged the matter before the High Court.
In its judgment, the High Court examined the statutory framework governing corrupt practices during elections, particularly Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which lists various acts that constitute corrupt practices. The court reaffirmed that offering items that can be construed as a benefit or “inducement” to influence voters’ decisions is prohibited. The bench noted that the legislative object behind these provisions is to prevent any unfair advantage in election contests which might arise through distribution of valuable items or promises that could sway electorates based on personal gain rather than policy or public interest considerations.
While the High Court agreed in principle that the acts alleged against the MLA did fall within the ambit of corrupt practice, it found procedural infirmities and legal misapplications in the trial court’s handling of evidence and sentencing. On this basis, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. However, the High Court emphasised that its decision did not dilute the substantive legal position that a candidate’s distribution of items intended, or reasonably perceived, to influence voters can amount to a corrupt practice warranting legal consequences. The court clarified that its order was limited to the specific facts and evidentiary record in the present case, particularly the manner in which the trial was conducted and the manner in which the evidence was marshalled and interpreted.
The bench also engaged with arguments relating to the cancellation of the election result. It observed that an election can be set aside if it is proved that corrupt practices have materially affected the outcome or if statutory conditions for invalidating the return are met. In the present appeal, the High Court remitted the matter to the appropriate authority to reconsider the question of whether the corrupt practice had indeed materially impacted the election result, in light of its findings regarding procedural deficiencies in the trial. By doing so, the court underscored the need for meticulous adherence to legal standards both in criminal adjudication and in election petitions or challenges that determine the validity of electoral outcomes.
Throughout the judgment, the High Court stressed electoral integrity and the need to deter practices that could undermine free and fair elections. It reiterated that the law prohibits any form of inducement or offer that could improperly influence voters, and that public representatives and candidates must abide by these statutory strictures. At the same time, the court affirmed that convictions or orders cancelling elections must rest on solid procedural foundations and reliable evidence, and that errors in trial can justify judicial interference even while acknowledging the substantive illegality of the underlying conduct if properly established.
The case thus highlights both the substantive law on corrupt practices in election campaigns and the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure that convictions and consequent electoral consequences are legally sustainable. It illustrates the dual judicial objectives of upholding the integrity of the electoral process while ensuring fairness and legality in adjudication of alleged offences under election law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.