Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 171 – Undue influence at elections

(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever—

(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind; or

(b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure,

shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).

(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action or the mere exercise or a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section.

Simplified Explanation

This section addresses the offense of undue influence during elections, defining acts that interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights, and providing examples of conduct that constitutes undue influence.

Key Provisions

1. Voluntary Interference with Electoral Rights:
   • Subsection (1): It is an offense for anyone to voluntarily interfere or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. The focus here is on ensuring that the voter or candidate can make decisions in the electoral process without coercion or external pressure.
2. Specific Acts of Undue Influence:
   • Subsection (2): This subsection specifies actions that would constitute undue influence, including:
     • (a) Threatening injury: Any threat of harm to a candidate, voter, or any person related to them, as a means to influence their electoral behavior.
     • (b) Inducing belief in Divine Displeasure: Using spiritual or religious influence by inducing a candidate or voter to believe that they or their associates will incur divine displeasure or spiritual censure if they act in a particular way. This can involve exploiting religious sentiments to influence a person’s voting behavior.
   • These specific examples clarify that it is not just direct threats but also the use of spiritual or supernatural pressure that qualifies as undue influence under this section.
3. Exemption for Public Policy or Legal Rights:
   • Subsection (3): The section also provides an exception to what constitutes undue influence. It specifies that:
     • A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, which is not intended to interfere with electoral rights, is not considered undue influence.
     • Similarly, exercising a legal right (e.g., campaigning or public speaking) without the intent to interfere with electoral rights is also not deemed interference.

Explanation of Key Terms

1. Undue Influence:
   • Undue influence refers to any actions or attempts to coerce, manipulate, or pressure a voter or candidate into making a choice or acting in a way that they would not have done of their own free will. It undermines the principle of free and fair elections, where choices should be made without external influence or intimidation.
2. Electoral Rights:
   • This refers to the right to vote or the right to stand for election, which is a fundamental part of the democratic process. The section ensures that these rights are exercised freely and without coercion.
3. Divine Displeasure:
   • The reference to divine displeasure in subsection (2)(b) points to using religious beliefs as a tool for influence. This can involve threats of spiritual consequences or supernatural penalties in an attempt to manipulate a voter’s or candidate’s decision.

Examples of Undue Influence Under Section 171

1. Threatening Injury:
   • A political candidate threatens to harm a voter or their family if they do not vote for a certain candidate. This would constitute undue influence because it coerces the voter into casting their vote under duress.
2. Religious Coercion:
   • A political leader tells a group of voters that they will be cursed or displeased by the divine if they vote for a particular candidate or party. This form of spiritual manipulation is considered undue influence because it exploits the voter’s religious beliefs to pressure their voting decision.
3. Legitimate Political Campaigning:
   • A candidate promises to improve the infrastructure of the region or introduces policies in their election campaign. This is not undue influence as long as the promise is based on public policy and not intended to coerce voters.
4. Threats of Economic or Social Harm:
   • A candidate threatens to revoke a business license or deny community resources to a voter if they do not vote in favor of a certain candidate. Such threats would constitute undue influence.

Purpose and Rationale

The aim of Section 171 is to preserve the integrity of elections by ensuring that voters and candidates can exercise their rights without coercion or undue pressure. It seeks to prevent practices that undermine the democratic process, such as threatening, manipulating, or exploiting religious sentiments to influence decisions.

• Freedom of Choice: By criminalizing undue influence, this section ensures that all individuals involved in an election (voters and candidates) make decisions based on their free will, not under any form of duress.
• Protecting Vulnerable Voters: The law helps protect vulnerable groups from being exploited, especially in contexts where there might be religious or economic pressure.
• Fair Election Process: The section supports the notion of free and fair elections, where each individual’s decision is based on their own preferences, uninfluenced by external pressures or threats.

Consequences and Penalties

The section does not explicitly outline the penalties for undue influence. However, individuals found guilty of undue influence may face legal action, including:

• Imprisonment for a term determined by the court.
• Fines that are deemed appropriate as a deterrent to such practices.

Conclusion

Section 171 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 aims to protect the electoral process by ensuring that the free exercise of electoral rights remains unaffected by undue influence. By criminalizing acts like threatening, coercing, or exploiting religious beliefs to influence voting behavior, it seeks to uphold the integrity of elections and promote a fair democratic process where voters can make decisions independently. The exception for public policy declarations and legal rights helps distinguish legitimate political actions from criminal interference.