- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 171 - Undue Influence at Elections
Introduction
Section 171 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, deals with the offence of undue influence at elections.
The provision seeks to protect the freedom of candidates and voters to exercise their electoral rights without improper interference, threats or pressure.
A person commits undue influence when they voluntarily interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the free exercise of an electoral right.
The section also identifies particular forms of interference, including threats of injury and attempts to influence electoral decisions by creating fear of divine displeasure or spiritual condemnation.
However, the provision distinguishes unlawful interference from legitimate political activities. Statements concerning public policy, promises of public action and the mere exercise of legal rights do not constitute undue influence when there is no intention to interfere with electoral rights.
Section 171(1) — General Meaning of Undue Influence
Under Section 171(1), a person commits the offence of undue influence at an election if they voluntarily interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the free exercise of any electoral right.
The provision therefore covers both actual interference and attempted interference.
It is not necessary for the interference to succeed. An attempt to interfere with the free exercise of an electoral right is also covered by the section.
The central requirement is that the person’s conduct involves voluntary interference, or an attempt at such interference, with the freedom to exercise an electoral right.
Section 171(2) — Specific Forms of Undue Influence
Section 171(2) identifies certain acts that are treated as interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
These specific instances do not restrict the broader scope of Section 171(1). Instead, they illustrate particular forms of conduct that fall within the general prohibition.
Section 171(2)(a) — Threatening a Candidate or Voter
A person is considered to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights if they threaten a candidate or voter with injury of any kind.
The provision also covers threats directed at another person in whom the candidate or voter has an interest.
Therefore, the threat need not be directed personally at the candidate or voter. A threat against someone important to them may also constitute undue influence.
The expression “injury of any kind” indicates that the provision is not confined to threats of physical harm.
The essential concern is the use of threats to interfere with the independent exercise of electoral rights.
Section 171(2)(b) — Fear of Divine Displeasure or Spiritual Censure
Section 171(2)(b) addresses interference based on religious or spiritual fear.
A person is deemed to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights if they induce or attempt to induce a candidate or voter to believe that the candidate, voter or another person in whom they are interested will suffer divine displeasure or spiritual censure.
The provision therefore covers attempts to influence electoral decisions by creating fear of religious or spiritual consequences.
It is not necessary for the person to succeed in creating that belief. An attempt to induce such a belief is also expressly covered.
The provision recognises that electoral freedom may be affected not only through threats of injury but also through pressure based on fear of divine punishment or spiritual condemnation.
Section 171(3) — Conduct Not Amounting to Undue Influence
Section 171(3) clarifies that certain activities do not constitute interference with electoral rights when they are carried out without an intention to interfere with those rights.
The provision identifies three categories of conduct.
1. Declaration of Public Policy
A statement or declaration concerning public policy does not, by itself, amount to undue influence.
Political parties, candidates and other persons may express their positions on matters of public policy without automatically committing the offence.
2. Promise of Public Action
A promise to undertake public action does not, by itself, constitute undue influence.
Such promises are not treated as unlawful interference merely because they are made in an electoral context.
3. Mere Exercise of a Legal Right
The exercise of a legal right does not constitute undue influence when it is carried out without an intention to interfere with an electoral right.
The provision therefore distinguishes legitimate conduct from actions intended to obstruct or influence the free exercise of electoral rights through prohibited interference.
Commentary
Section 171 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to Section 171-C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the supplied commentary, the wording of the provision remains unchanged.
The provision has been retained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the same form as its corresponding provision under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Law — Babu Rao Patel v. Zakir Hussain, AIR 1968
Background of the Case
The case arose in connection with the Presidential election held in India in 1967.
Zakir Hussain was elected President of India after defeating the other candidates, including Babu Rao Patel.
Following the election, Babu Rao Patel filed an election petition challenging Zakir Hussain’s election.
The petition alleged that corrupt practices and electoral irregularities had occurred during the election.
Issue Relating to Undue Influence
One of the matters considered concerned a letter written by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, to Members of Parliament.
In the letter, she requested Members of Parliament to vote for the candidate belonging to her political party for the office of President.
The question was whether this communication amounted to undue influence in the electoral process.
Decision
The court held that the letter written by Mrs. Indira Gandhi to Members of Parliament, requesting them to support her party’s Presidential candidate, did not constitute undue influence.
Principle Established
The case illustrates that a political request seeking support for a particular candidate does not automatically amount to undue influence.
A request to vote for a candidate must be distinguished from conduct involving prohibited interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
The decision therefore highlights the importance of distinguishing ordinary political persuasion from unlawful electoral pressure.
Key Takeaway
Section 171 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, defines undue influence at elections as voluntarily interfering with, or attempting to interfere with, the free exercise of an electoral right.
The provision specifically includes threats of injury against candidates, voters or persons in whom they are interested.
It also includes inducing or attempting to induce fear of divine displeasure or spiritual censure to interfere with electoral freedom.
However, declarations of public policy, promises of public action and the mere exercise of legal rights do not amount to undue influence when there is no intention to interfere with electoral rights.
In Babu Rao Patel v. Zakir Hussain, AIR 1968, the court held that the Prime Minister’s letter requesting Members of Parliament to vote for her party’s Presidential candidate did not constitute undue influence.
IPC Equivalent: Section 171-C IPC.
Legislative Position: The language remains unchanged, and the provision has been retained as it was.
Final Memory Formula:
SECTION 171 = VOLUNTARY INTERFERENCE OR ATTEMPTED INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTORAL RIGHTS + THREATS OF INJURY + FEAR OF DIVINE DISPLEASURE OR SPIRITUAL CENSURE − PROTECTED PUBLIC POLICY DECLARATIONS, PROMISES OF PUBLIC ACTION AND EXERCISE OF LEGAL RIGHTS WITHOUT INTENT TO INTERFERE.
