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'.
It asks 2 things — 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 corrupt practices; proved in an election petition, one voids the election (Section 100) and can disqualify the candidate (Section 8A).
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).
- Way forward: the Law Commission's 244th Report would make a false affidavit a corrupt practice; the Election Commission seeks a two-year minimum under Section 125A.
Close with · Asset growth becomes an electoral wrong when hidden from voters; closing this gap would advance SDG 16.5, to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.
Add value (verified)
- The Law Commission's 244th Report (Electoral Disqualifications) recommended treating a false affidavit as a corrupt practice.Law Commission of India, Report No. 244: Electoral Disqualifications (February 2014), copy hosted on delhihighcourt.nic.in ↗“Include the offence of filing false affidavit as a corrupt practice under S. 123 of the RPA.”
- In 2004 the Election Commission recommended imprisonment of a minimum of two years under Section 125A for false affidavits, as recorded in the Law Commission's 244th Report.Law Commission of India, Report No. 244: Electoral Disqualifications (February 2014), copy hosted on delhihighcourt.nic.in ↗“the Commission recommended that the punishment under Section 125A of RPA must be made more stringent by providing for imprisonment of a minimum term of two years and by doing away with the alternative clause for fine.”
- SDG target 16.5 seeks to cut corruption and bribery.United Nations, SDG 16 ↗“Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 208words · Minimalist IAS
Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lists 'corrupt practices'. Proved in an election petition, one voids the election (Section 100) and can disqualify the candidate (Section 8A).
Corrupt practices under Section 123
- Bribery: gratification to induce a person to stand, withdraw or vote.
- Undue influence (Section 123(2)): interference with the free exercise of an electoral right, such as threats, social ostracism or spiritual censure.
- Sectarian appeals: votes sought on religion, caste, community or language.
- Other abuses: false statements about rivals, excess expenditure, booth capturing.
Are disproportionate assets 'undue influence'?
- Yes, when concealed: Lok Prahari (2018) linked non-disclosure of assets and their sources to undue influence on voters' free choice.
- No, by itself: wealth amassed in office is criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, not election conduct.
- Unexplained assets
- Concealed in affidavit
- Voter misled
- Undue influence
- Election void
Way forward
- Law Commission: its 244th Report would make filing a false affidavit a corrupt practice.
- Election Commission: seeks a two-year minimum sentence under Section 125A.
- Monitoring: a permanent mechanism to track legislators' assets, as the Court sought.
Asset growth becomes an electoral wrong when hidden from voters; closing this gap would advance SDG 16.5: to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
