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.
What the examiner wants
Explain 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of the RPA and analyse whether unexplained growth in legislators' assets can count as 'undue influence'.
Demand-wise check
- 1Corrupt practices under Section 123: bribery, undue influence, appeal on religion/caste, false statements, booth capturing, excess expenditure≈35 words
- 2Undue influence: interference with the free exercise of electoral right (Section 123(2))≈35 words
- 3Disproportionate assets: Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) — the Court held that unexplained asset growth can be relevant to undue influence and directed disclosure of sources of income; gaps in law≈35 words
Open in about 20 words and close in about 20.
Answer plan
Where marks usually go
- Listing corrupt practices without analysing the disproportionate assets question
- Missing Lok Prahari (2018), the case this question is based on
Draw this
- Flow chart: asset disclosure → scrutiny → undue influence → election void
Value addition
- Case lawLok Prahari v. Union of India (2018): the Supreme Court required candidates to disclose sources of income of self, spouse and dependants, and linked disproportionate assets to undue influence.Supreme Court of India, 2018
- LawSection 100(1)(b) of the RPA, 1951 lets the High Court declare an election void for a corrupt practice.Representation of the People Act, 1951
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Aditya Srivastava · AIR 1 · Page 26 ↗Same syllabus reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 7 minutes, then get it checked.