Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
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.
Why this exists
Free and fair elections require that voters and candidates act according to their own judgment, not under fear or coercion. This provision descends from colonial-era election offences (originally Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) designed to stop bosses, landlords, or religious leaders from using threats—physical, social, or spiritual—to control how people vote. It works alongside the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which treats 'undue influence' as a corrupt practice that can void an election.
How courts read it
Courts interpreting this provision and its civil-law counterpart under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (corrupt practice of undue influence) have read 'free exercise of electoral right' broadly—covering not just the act of casting a vote but a person's freedom to decide how to vote, whether to contest, or whether to campaign. Judges have also examined cases where religious authorities threatened excommunication or spiritual censure against voters, treating such threats as capable of amounting to undue influence, while distinguishing genuine appeals to conscience or policy debate (protected under sub-section (3)) from coercive threats.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only physical threats of violence count as undue influence.
Fact: The law also covers threats of 'divine displeasure' or spiritual punishment, and threats of any kind of injury—not just physical violence. - Myth: Promising to build roads or schools if elected is illegal 'inducement'.
Fact: Sub-section (3) makes clear that genuine declarations of public policy or promises of public action are not undue influence, as long as there's no intent to coerce. - Myth: This section only protects voters, not candidates.
Fact: The law explicitly protects both candidates and voters, and even people connected to them, from threats or coercion.