Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Nirma University

Institute of Law
Corruption in Indian Election System
Synopsis of Criminal Law

Submitted to: Prof. Rhishikesh Dave Course Name: Criminal Law

Submitted ByRaj Tanna 11BBL117

INTRODUCTION India has an asymmetric federal government, with elected officials at the federal, state and local levels. At the national level, the head of government, Prime Minister, is elected by the members of Lok Sabha, lower house of the parliament of India. All members of Lok Sabha except two, who can be nominated by president of India, are directly elected through general elections which takes place every five years, in normal circumstances, by universal adult suffrage.[2] Members of Rajya Sabha, upper house of Indian parliament, are elected by elected members of the legislative assemblies of states and electoral college for Union Territories of India. Lok Sabha is composed of representatives of the people chosen by direct election on the basis of the adult suffrage. The maximum strength of the House envisaged by the Constitution is 552, which is made up by election of up to 530 members to represent the States, up to 20 members to represent the Union Territories and not more than two members of the Anglo-Indian Community to be nominated by the President, if, in his/ her opinion, that community is not adequately represented in the House. The dominance of the Indian National Congress was broken for the first time in 1977, with the defeat of the party led by Indira Gandhi, by an unlikely coalition of all the major other parties, which protested against the imposition of a controversial Emergency from 19751977. A similar coalition, led by VP Singh was swept to power in 1989 in the wake of major allegations of corruption by the incumbent Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi. It, too, lost its steam in 1990. In 1992, the heretofore one-party-dominant politics in India gave way to a coalition system wherein no single party can expect to achieve a majority in the Parliament to form a government, but rather has to depend on a process of coalition building with other parties to form a block and claim a majority to be invited to form the government. This has been a consequence of strong regional parties which ride on the back of regional aspirations. While parties like the TDP and the AIADMK had traditionally been strong regional contenders, the 1990s saw the emergence of other regional players such as the Lok Dal, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Janata Dal. These parties are traditionally based on regional aspirations, e.g. Telangana Rashtra Samithi or are strongly influenced by caste considerations, e.g. Bahujan Samaj Party which claims to represent the Dalits. Presently, the United Progressive Alliance led by the Congress Party is in power, while the National Democratic Alliance forms the opposition. Manmohan Singh was re-elected the Prime minister of India.

OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTION:Sec-171B, Bribery-(1) Whoever-

(i)

gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercise any such right; or

(ii)

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.

(2) A person who offers or agrees to give ,or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accepts or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as reward for doing what he has not done , shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward. Sec-171C. Undue influence at elections.-(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of under influence at an election.

(2) Without prejudice to the generally of the provisions of sub-sections (1) whoever-

(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or (b) Induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object or Divine displeasure or of spiritual pleasure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter.

171D. Personation at elections- whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence of personation at an election.

171E Punishment for bribery.- Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year , or with fine, or with both. 171F. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.-Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

171G.False statement in connection with an election.- Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.171H. Illegal payments, in connection with an election-Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meetings, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees;

Provide that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate. From all of the above mentioned offences the BRIBERY is the root cause for election BRIBERY:Bribery, is an act of implying money or gift giving that alters the behaviour of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or many types of bribes exist: tip, gift, sop, perk, skim, favour, discount, waived fee/ticket, free food, free ad, free trip, free tickets, sweetheart deal, kickback/payback, funding, inflated sale of an object or property, lucrative contract, donation, campaign contribution, fundraiser, sponsorship/backing, higher paying job, stock options, secret commission, or promotion (rise of position/rank/public capacity.

Literature review BRIBERY IN IPC and PC Act 1988 The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted primarily on 1947 when the scenario was a dangerous one. It was repealed in the year 1988 with Act No. 49 of 1988 with the same name which contained numerous other provisions to curb the menace of corruption especially by public servants. The Indian Penal Code explains Bribery in S 171B(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward. Section 171E. Punishment for bribery Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extend to one year, or with fine, or withboth:Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation-"Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision. Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 PC Act of 1988 can be regarded as the most explanatory of the anti-corruption Acts existing where crimes like bribery are dealt with proper fashion and explained properly to charge and bring to justice the offenders. Indian Penal Code deals with all offences by or relating to public servant. It does not deal with misconduct and abuse of power by the public servant.

Section 161 to 165 of IPC Deals with various offences of corruption and this are the first step to fight against corruption committed by the public servants. It deals with various provisions in the commission and or abetment of offence. With the provisions of Criminal Misconduct under Section 5 of PC Act, 1988 the sections from 161 to 165A of the IPC were repealed giving way for better provisioned Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to take its place. To come under the section of bribe, the receiver must be a public servant, he must have solicited or receive illegal gratification, he must have received the same as motive to do a future act or reward for a past act. (Mohinder Lal Bagai v/s DelhiAdministration 1970 Cr LJ 793)The amount thus received should be other than his legal remuneration. Public servant habitually accepting bribe is aggravated form of 161 IPC. Abuse of official position and the possession of disproportionate assets are the other two categories in corruption. Investigation shall be done through the authorized officer mentioned under S.17 of the PC Act, 1988 (State of M.P. v Sheri Ram Singh, 2000 Cr.L.J.1401: A.I.R. 2000S.C. 870)Abuse of official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage is wider in scope than bribe, but as the acceptance of valuable things of money itself, it still could be viewed under bribery. A public servant takes 200 Rs to provide a sick certificate. The tainted notes were provided by the CBI which they recover from him later. Court convicted him of bribery and subsequent appeal was rejected by the High Court. (Mukhdeo singh v.state of Bihar, 2003 Cr. L.J.626 at pp.629-30)Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act implicates a public servant of criminal misconduct in the fashion of irregularity including became transactions related to the accumulated wealth in comparison with his known source of income. (K Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamilnadu, 2001)Section 13(1)(e) in the case of a public servant who cannot prove the source of his income can be convicted up to seven years imprisonment with fine. In the case of State v. Bharat Chandra Roul, (1995 Cr.L.J 2417 at p.2418 (Orissa), accused was convicted and as a minimum sentence was given rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs Five Lakhs. In the case of possession of disproportionate assets (K. Veera Swami v/s Union of India (1991) 3 SCC), the Supreme Court made an observation that if one possesses assets beyond his legitimate means, it goes without saying that the excess is out of ill-gotten gain. Abettor in accumulating disproportionate assets can also be prosecuted for aiding the acquirement. Receipt of income, if not informed cannot be regarded as income

In a corrupt scenario the bureaucrats are lured to gifts and money to make them do something they are entitled to do, in a wrong way, so as to give someone an unfair advantage he is not legally entitled. Such cases have come before the court where a loan is availed to someone who has not provided enough documents and there were reasonable evidence of accepting of bribe in those cases. On the other hand bribe money has made the bureaucrats greedier and

now even simple things will not get done through them without bribing them first. More over the newly introduced Right to Information Act 2005 have done much to improve Indias rank in the transparency index from 119 to 87. It is also to be noted that to cure this cancer the common man should be legally literate and make bureaucracy honest by adequate training and orientation. Its a big problem for the Indian democracy to check the corruption and related Complaints. If someone is ready to give any information on any financial irregularities the opposite group is also ready to stop him from reaching the court as witness. They will take any lethal method to do so. The case of Satyendranath Dubey who reported the looting in highway authority of Jharkhand has become a tragic incident. He was killed by the goons of the PWD contractors of the state. Examples are in plenty for such bad condition of the whistle blowers. Though Govt. of India has recently passed a new law for the security of those who report the corruption, it still needs support from the police and state administration to make it really tough for the corrupted to touch or even reach the informer. We have miles to go for ensuring the safety of the whistle-blowers so that someone will come and voluntarily give the information about the malpractice in their offices.

India has constitutional and statutory bodies to check corruption like CenterVigilance Commission. With the backing of honest officers and dedicated activists we can bring down or make less of this menace in the coming years.

OBJECTIVES To examine how prevalent is the concept of Bribery in the Indian Political System. How to eradicate the prevalent corruption.

HYPOTHESIS To examine the offenses related to election in the Indian System as mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM In the present political scenario bribery acts as the catalyst in the Election processes

BIBLIOGRAPHY www.scribd.com ; Bribery in India by Lee www.whereisdoc.com ; Bribery and Election by Mahendra Verma www.jstor.org; Election and Corruption in India.