Allegations Of 'Bribing' Voters Prior To Being Nominated As A Candidate Cannot Be Termed 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that any alleged corrupt act done by a candidate prior to being nominated for elections cannot be termed as a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. For context, Section 123 of the RP Act pertains to corrupt practices, which includes bribery. Bribery is explained as any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; (b) or an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election. Justice M I Arun held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Subhan Khan, who had challenged the election of Prabha Mallikarjun to the Davanagere Lokasabha constituency in the general elections held in May 2024.Khan alleged that on April 6, 2024 Mallikarjun and her agents had distributed money and goods to the voters. The court referred to Section 79 (b) of the Act, which defines “candidate” as a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. It noted that Mallikarjun had filedhis nomination only on April 12, 2024. "Thus, a person becomes a candidate as per Section 79(b) of the Act for the purposes of Section 123 of the Act only upon filing of nomination and not earlier to it. In the instant case, respondent No.1 has become a candidate only after 12.04.2024 (the date on which she has filed her nomination) and not earlier to it. Thus, any act done by respondent No.1 prior to 12.04.2024, does not become a corrupt practice for the purposes of Section 123 of the Act"The court noted that, admittedly, all the specific allegations of corrupt practice alleged against Mallikarjun (respondent 1) had been made on April 6, 2024, much earlier than her becoming a candidate. "Thus, even if all the allegations made against respondent No.1 in the election petition are held to be true, the petitioner cannot succeed in the election petition and under the circumstances, it has to be construed that the election petition has been filed without a valid cause of action," the court added.The petitioner further alleged that the respondent had issued 'Congress Guarantee Card' by the Indian National Congress Party. However, during the hearing the petitioner submitted that in view of high court's decision in another election plea, he does not intend to press the 'Congress Guarantee Card' point, as it has already been negatived by the high court in its earlier ruling.Meanwhile Mallikarjun filed an interim application in the matter (I.A.No.2/2024) under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with Section 86(1) RP Act seeking dismissal of election petition. Allowing Mallikarjun's application, the court dismissed the election pertition.Case Title: Subhan Khan AND Prabha MallikarjunCousel for petitioner:Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai for Advocate Shivaraj B for Petitioner.Counsel for respondent: Advocate Prashant F Goudar for Goutam S BharadwajCitation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allegations Of 'Bribing' Voters Prior To Being Nominated As A Candidate Cannot Be Termed 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags