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.
Approach · directive: “discuss / analyze”
What it asks · Explain what Section 123 of the RPA, 1951 treats as corrupt practices, then analyse whether unexplained growth in the assets of legislators or their associates can be brought within 'undue influence'.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Discuss: the 'corrupt practices' listed in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Analyse: whether a disproportionate rise in the assets of legislators or their associates amounts to 'undue influence' and hence a corrupt practice
Open with · Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lists the 'corrupt practices' that, if proved, void an election and can disqualify the person found guilty.
Cover
- Corrupt practices: bribery, undue influence, appeals on religion, caste, community or language, promoting enmity, false statements about rivals, excess expenditure, booth capturing.
- Undue influence (s.123(2)): any direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of an electoral right — threats, social ostracism, spiritual censure.
- Consequences: election set aside in an election petition (s.100) and disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice (s.8A).
- For treating it as undue influence: in Lok Prahari (2018) the Supreme Court linked non-disclosure of assets and their sources to undue influence on voters' free choice.
- Against: s.123 targets acts by a candidate or agent connected with an election; wealth gained in office is primarily an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Middle view: disproportionate assets become a corrupt practice when concealed in the nomination affidavit or used to buy votes (bribery).
- Reforms: a permanent mechanism to monitor legislators' asset growth, and making false affidavits a corrupt practice, as the Election Commission has sought.
Close with · Asset growth by itself is a matter for anti-corruption law; it turns into a corrupt practice when concealed from voters or used to sway them — Parliament should settle this grey zone by amendment.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 234 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lists the 'corrupt practices' that taint an election: if proved, the election is void (Section 100) and disqualification of up to six years may follow (Section 8A).
Corrupt practices under Section 123
- Bribery: gratification offered to induce a person to stand, withdraw or vote.
- Undue influence (Section 123(2)): direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of an electoral right — threats, social ostracism, spiritual censure.
- Appeals to religion, caste, community or language; promoting enmity; false statements about a rival; excess expenditure; help from government servants; booth capturing.
Are disproportionate assets 'undue influence'?
- For: in Lok Prahari (2018) the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of assets and their sources, including a spouse's and dependants', misleads voters and is undue influence under Section 123(2).
- Against: Section 123 targets conduct connected with an election; wealth gathered in office is criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proved in a criminal trial.
- Distinction: asset growth alone is no corrupt practice; it becomes one when concealed in the affidavit or used to buy votes.
- Gap: the Court sought a permanent mechanism to monitor legislators' assets and the Election Commission wants false affidavits made a corrupt practice; neither is legislated.
Disproportionate assets belong first to anti-corruption law and enter electoral law when hidden from voters or used to sway them; Parliament should settle this grey zone by amendment.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.