Electoral Offences under BNS: A legal Framework

Introduction to Electoral Offences under BNS

Elections form the bedrock of democratic societies, allowing citizens to choose their representatives and influence the governance of their country. However, electoral offences under BNS can compromise integrity, undermining democracy and public trust. These offences include voter fraud, intimidation, illegal voter influence, and falsifying election results. Electoral offences under BNS include various illegal activities, such as voter fraud, intimidation, illegal voter influence, and falsifying election results.

Types of Electoral Offences under BNS

1. Voter Fraud: This includes activities such as impersonating another voter or registering to vote multiple times. It also includes casting more than one vote in an election.
2. Electoral Malpractice by Officials: This involves misconduct by those responsible for administering elections, such as tampering with ballots or altering vote counts. It also includes refusing to count legitimate votes.
3. Intimidation and Coercion: This offense includes any form of pressure or threat used to influence a voter’s decision. It also covers actions that prevent them from voting freely. This can be physical threats, economic pressure, or psychological coercion.
4. Bribery and Corruption: Offering money or incentives to voters or officials to sway an election outcome falls under this category. This compromises the fairness and integrity of the electoral process.
5. Campaign Violations: These include breaches of campaign finance laws, such as exceeding spending limits or using prohibited funding sources. Failing to disclose campaign contributions also falls under this category.
6. Misleading Information: Disseminating false information about candidates, parties, or the electoral process can mislead voters. This can impact the fairness of elections.
7. Vote Tampering: This includes any form of interference with the actual voting process or the counting of votes, such as destroying ballots or hacking electronic voting systems.

Candidate, electoral right defined: Section 169

1. “Candidate”:

• Meaning: A “candidate” is someone who has officially been put forward or nominated to run in an election. This means they have agreed to be considered for a position or role in the election and are running to be elected.

2. “Electoral Right”:

• Meaning: An “electoral right” refers to a person’s rights related to elections. This includes:
  • The right to stand for election (to become a candidate),
  • The right to withdraw from being a candidate if they change their mind,
  • The right to vote in the election,
  • The right to refrain from voting (choosing not to vote).

Bribery: Section 170

This law outlines the offense of bribery in relation to electoral rights. Authorities consider a person to commit bribery if they give or offer any form of gratification (such as money or gifts) to influence someone’s electoral rights or reward them for voting a certain way.

Similarly, authorities consider it bribery if a person accepts gratification, either for themselves or for someone else, as a reward for voting or influencing others to vote. However, making public policy declarations or promises of public action does not count as bribery.

Additionally, authorities treat someone as having given gratification if they offer, agree to give, or try to arrange it. Similarly, they consider a person to have accepted gratification if they try to accept or agree to accept it. If someone accepts gratification without real intent to act or as a reward for something they have not done, authorities still consider it acceptance of a bribe.

Undue influence at elections: Section 171

This legal provision aims to prevent undue influence in elections, ensuring that the electoral process remains fair and free from coercion. It defines “undue influence” as any deliberate attempt to interfere with a person’s ability to vote freely.

This includes threatening harm to a candidate, voter, or anyone close to them, or using religious or spiritual threats to manipulate voting decisions.

However, the provision specifies that people do not commit undue influence by merely making promises about public policy or exercising legal rights, such as campaigning or expressing opinions, as long as they do not intend to coerce.

This provision seeks to protect the integrity of the voting process and ensure that elections occur without intimidation or undue pressure by targeting specific actions that directly undermine a person’s free exercise of electoral rights.

Definition of terms being used in Provision

  Definition of Undue Influence:

• Interfering with or attempting to interfere with someone’s free exercise of their electoral rights is considered undue influence.

  Specific Forms of Undue Influence:

• Threatening any candidate, voter, or someone related to them with harm.
• Inducing or attempting to induce a candidate or voter to believe that they or someone close to them will face divine displeasure or spiritual censure.

  Exclusions:

• Public policy declarations or promises of public action are not considered undue influence.
• Simply exercising a legal right without intent to interfere with someone’s electoral rights is also not deemed undue influence.

Punishment for bribery: Section 173

Anyone found guilty of committing bribery can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both. However, if the bribery involves “treating,” meaning offering food, drink, entertainment, or similar provisions as a bribe, the punishment will only be a fine.

Illustration: If someone gives money to a voter to influence their vote, they may face imprisonment or a fine. But if they offer a meal or entertainment instead of money to sway the voter, they will only be fined.

Section 176 : Illegal payments in connection with an election.

This provision deals with electoral offences under BNS related to unauthorized election expenses. It makes it an offense for anyone to spend money on behalf of a candidate to promote or support their election, unless they have written authorization from the candidate. If someone organizes public meetings, advertisements, circulars, or other promotional activities for a candidate without written permission, authorities can fine them up to ten thousand rupees.

Illustration:

Imagine a supporter of Candidate X decides to organize a rally to boost X’s campaign. They print flyers, buy ads in local newspapers, and cover other expenses related to the rally.

However, if this supporter does not obtain written permission from Candidate X to spend money on these activities, authorities consider their actions unauthorized. They could fine the supporter up to ten thousand rupees for these unauthorized expenses under this provision.

This rule ensures transparency and control over all campaign spending, preventing unauthorized expenditures that could unfairly influence the election.

  K.K. Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1993): This case dealt with the issue of electoral malpractice, specifically regarding the misuse of official machinery during elections. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for fair conduct and adherence to election laws to maintain democratic integrity.

  Jagjivan Ram v. Union of India (1970): The Supreme Court addressed the issue of electoral corruption, including the use of state resources for election campaigns, which is a violation of election laws.

Section 177 : Failure to keep election accounts

This provision mandates that individuals involved in elections must keep detailed accounts of all expenses related to their campaign activities, as required by law or regulations. If someone fails to maintain these accounts, authorities can fine them up to five thousand rupees.

Illustration:

Suppose the law requires Candidate Y to keep a record of all campaign-related expenses while running for office. If Candidate Y’s campaign manager does not maintain these records or fails to document the spending properly, this non-compliance with the legal requirement can result in a fine of up to five thousand rupees. This fine serves as a penalty for not adhering to the legal standards for financial transparency in elections.

Conclusion

Electoral offences under BNS present a profound challenge to the democratic process, threatening the fairness, integrity, and legitimacy of elections. These offences, ranging from voter fraud and intimidation to campaign violations and vote tampering, undermine public trust and can lead to political instability.

To safeguard democracy, it is essential for countries to establish and enforce robust legal frameworks that deter and penalize electoral offences under BNS. This requires vigilant monitoring by election authorities, transparent processes, and the active participation of civil society and international observers. Additionally, educating voters about their rights and fostering a culture of integrity and accountability in politics are crucial steps in preventing electoral misconduct.

Ultimately, addressing and preventing electoral offences under BNS is not just about maintaining the procedural integrity of elections; it is about preserving the very foundation of democratic governance. Ensuring fair and free elections empowers citizens, strengthens democratic institutions, and promotes a stable and just society.