Gratification Of Electors During Election Demolishes Basic Structure Of Constitution And Democracy: Madras High Court

Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench also lamented that the legislature has not treated such gratifications with gravity as the offence was punishable only with imprisonment to an extent of one year. The judge pointed out that due to the lesser gravity of the offence, the practice of gratification has only increased with every election with around Rs 4,650 crores being seized in the current parliament election so far.

“However, of late, gratifications are being made to the electors in the form of money, food, prizes, etc. Such gratifications would demolish the very basic structure of the constitution and democracy. But, it appears that the legislature has not treated this offence proportionate to its gravity and has treated it as an offence punishable for an imprisonment to an extent of one year. Resultantly, the practice of distributing money/gift to the voters have not been reduced and the cases reported for distribution of money during elections are rising in every election,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas to quash FIRs registered for the offence of gratification during the 2011 elections. The petitioners had argued that the final reports were filed after the period of limitation and that for the offence under Section 171(E) and Section 188 of IPC, a private complaint had to be filed before the concerned judicial magistrate which was not done in the present cases.

The court noted that though the Election Commission had deployed squads to check the movement of money and cases were also being registered for bribery, due to lesser penal action in the provisions, the cases were being filed merely for statistical purposes and investigation agencies were also not proceeding effectively with the case.

The court was also informed that many cases registered for offences under Section 171 (E) were not reaching the courts and final reports were being filed only in selected cases. It was also submitted that conviction in these cases was also less.

The court, thus directed the State to provide details of cases registered in the 2019 Parliamentary Elections and 2021 State Assembly Elections for bribery of voters, the stage of the case and the details of the cases which ended in conviction.

The court also directed the State Election Commission to explain how it was following up with the cases that were being filed for electoral offences and offer suggestions for effective prevention of gratification to voters.

Case Title: Dhanalakshmi v Sub Inspector of Police

Case No: Crl OP(MD) 3010 of 2024