in order that the offence of undue influence can be said
to have been made out within the meaning of section
171C of the Penal Code, something more than the mere
act of canvassing for a candidate must be shown to
have been done by the offender. That something more
may, for example, be in the nature of a threat of an
injury to a candidate or a voter as stated in subsection 2(a) of section 171C of the Penal Code or, it may
consist of inducing a belief of divine displeasure in the
mind of a candidate or a voter as stated in sub-section
2(b). The act alleged as constituting undue influence
must be in the nature of a pressure or tyranny on the
mind of the candidate or the voter. It is not possible to
enumerate exhaustively the diverse categories of acts
which fall within the definition of undue influence. It
is enough for our purpose to say, that of one thing
there can be no doubt: the mere act of canvassing for a
candidate cannot amount to undue influence within
the meaning of section 171C of the Penal Code.”
[320] The Supreme Court of India had also held in an earlier case of Shiv
Kirpal Singh v. Shri V. V. Giri118 that:
“The language used in the definition of "undue
influence" implies that an offence of undue influence
will be held to have been committed if the elector
having made up his mind to cast a vote for a
particular candidate does not do so because of the act
of the offender, and this can only be if he is under the
threat or fear of some adverse consequence.
Whenever any threat of adverse consequences is
given, it will tend to divert the elector from freely
exercising his electoral right by voting for the
candidate chosen by him for the purpose…. But, in
cases where the only act done is for the purpose of
convincing the voter that a particular candidate is not
118
Shiv Kirpal Singh v. Shri V. V. Giri 1971 SCR (2) 197.
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
138
|
P a g e
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents