Loading…
On 17 August 2026 the Supreme Court issued a set of directions to curb the use of unaccounted cash and voter inducement in elections, in State of Karnataka and Another v. Prathik Parasrampuria.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that a choice influenced by external inducement is no longer the voter's own choice, and that black money in elections strikes at the core of democracy.
Key directions: cash or asset seizures must be reported to the jurisdictional District Magistrate or court within 24 hours with written reasons showing a prima facie electoral nexus, and seizures above Rs 10 lakh must be forwarded to income-tax authorities.
Investigating officers must endeavour to complete investigations within one year of FIR registration, with quarterly status reports to the Election Commission through nodal officers, and High Courts may designate special courts for the speedy trial of cases against candidates and sitting legislators.
Crucially, withdrawal of a criminal case against an election candidate now requires the approval of the concerned High Court; a compliance report is due by 18 November 2026.
Vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in the Election Commission of India - the source of the ECI's authority to run surveillance and receive the reports the Court has now mandated.
Makes bribery in connection with an electoral right an offence punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. This was one of the sections in the 2014 FIR. The IPC has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Treats bribery as a corrupt practice, which can void an election on an election petition - a civil consequence running parallel to the criminal one.
Requires every candidate to keep a separate and correct account of election expenditure between nomination and the declaration of results, within limits set by the Election Commission.
Provides for disqualification on conviction for specified offences - which is why the pace of trials, and the withdrawal of prosecutions, has a direct bearing on who can contest.
Set up in July 1993 under Home Secretary N.N. Vohra and reporting in October 1993, it documented the nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats. The present judgment returns to the same theme from the money side.
In August 2021 the Supreme Court held that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP or MLA may be withdrawn without the permission of the concerned High Court. The 2026 judgment extends that logic from sitting legislators to election candidates.
On 15 February 2024 a Constitution Bench struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary, holding that it violated the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a). That case addressed opaque legal funding; this one addresses illegal funding.
Revised by the Election Commission in January 2022 - Rs 95 lakh for a Lok Sabha candidate in the larger States and Rs 75 lakh in the smaller ones, and Rs 40 lakh and Rs 28 lakh respectively for Assembly seats. Ceilings apply to candidates, not to political parties, which is a standard criticism.
GS Paper II > Polity and Governance > Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; Election Commission; judicial pronouncements
General Awareness > Indian Polity and current affairs
General Awareness > National current affairs
General Awareness > Indian Polity
Which Article of the Indian Constitution deals with the "Election Commission of India"?
Answer: Article 324
Consider the following statements: 1. In the election for Lok Sabha or State Assembly, the winning candidate must get at least 50 percent of the votes polled, to be declared elected. 2. According to the provisions laid down in the Constitution of India, in Lok Sabha, the Speaker's post goes to the majority party and the Deputy Speaker's to the Opposition. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: Neither 1 nor 2
Which Constitutional Amendment Act reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 years?
Answer: 61st Amendment
A category of electoral misconduct under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including bribery; proof of it can void an election through an election petition.
The power of the public prosecutor, with the consent of the court, to withdraw a criminal case - now requiring High Court approval where the accused is an election candidate.
Flying squads and static surveillance teams deployed by the Election Commission during the model code period to detect the movement of cash, liquor and other inducements.
The written justification an authority must now record within 24 hours linking a seizure to an electoral offence, rather than treating it as an unexplained cash seizure.