Money Power in Election in India vis-à-vis Electoral Reforms to curb the menace
- Part 4 -

Yumnam Premananda Singh *

– A case study in 2012 Election of U.P., Uttarakhand, Goa, Punjab and Manipur

III
Money power in elections:

In 2012 election in all five States money power played a crucial role in winning the election. The assets particularly those candidate having higher assets were the winners. Data shows that higher the assets more chances of winning election. Let us see state wise data of this fact.

In the Uttarakhand 2012 Assembly Election, 46% of the MLAs who declared assets more than 5 crore and above have won. On the other hand, only 6% of MLAs with assets less than 20 lakhs could win. The election results seemed to be highly influenced by the money power of candidates. Following table shows clearly the fact stated above :

Value	No of Candidates	No of MLAs	Percentage of MLAs
5 crores and above	11	5	46%
1 crores to 5 crores	85	27	32%
20 lakhs to 1 crores	142	32	23%
Less than 20 lakhs	94	6	6%

Table: Chances of winning based on assets[11]

The trend of money power directly proportionate to winning election is also a case in Punjab Assembly Election 2012.In that state 37.7% of the candidates who declared assets of 5 crore and above won. On the other hand only 0.5% of candidates with assets less than 20 lakh won. It means the election results is highly influenced by the money power of candidates. The following table shows the money power = winner in election in Punjab Assembly 2012 :

Value of assets	No of candidates	No of Winners	% of Winners in the given range
5 crores and above	146	55	37.7%
1 crores to 5 crores	227	46	20.3%
20 lakhs to 1 crores	240	14	5.8%
Less than 20 lakhs	441	2	0.5%

Table :Chances of winning based on assets[12]

In Uttar Pradesh also the higher the assets the more are the chances of winning for a candidate. In the U. P. 2012 Assembly Election, 27% of the candidates who declared assets more than 5 crore and above have won. On the other hand only 1.2% of candidates with assets less than 20 lakhs could win. This election results clearly shows that money power means winner in election. The following table morefully shows the fact stated above :

Value of assets	No of candidates	No of Winners	% of Winners
5 crores and above	217	60	27.7%
1 crores to 5 crores	996	211	21.2%
20 lakhs to 1 crores	1249	113	9.1%
Less than 20 lakhs	1660	19	1.1%

Table: Chances of winning based on assets[13]

The more upward trend for higher the assets higher the chances of winning election is reflected in Goa Assembly Election 2012.In Goa, 37% or 21 out of 57 candidates who declared assets more than 5 crore and above have won decisively. On the other hand only 6% or 3 out of 52 candidates with assets not more than 1 crore could win. The only conclusion can be drawn from this analysis is that more the money power means definite winner in election. The following table shows the fact :

Value of assets	No of candidates	No of MLAs	% of MLAs in the given range
5 crores and above	57	21	37%
1 crores to 5 crores	57	16	28%
20 lakhs to 1 crores	52	3	6%
Less than 20 lakhs	47	0	0%

Table: Chances of winning based on assets [14]

Again in Manipur more upward trend in this regard i.e. the higher the assets the more are the chances of winning for a candidate. In the Manipur 2012 Assembly Election, 47% of the candidates who declared assets more than 1 crore and above have won. On the other hand only 11% of candidates with assets less than 5 lakhs could win. This trend of winning the election by money alone is very much alarming in Manipur. The following table shows this dangerous trend:

Value of assets	No of candidates	No of MLAs	% of Winners in the given Range
1 crores and above	34	16	47%
50 lakhs to 1 crores	42	13	31%
5 lakhs to 50 lakhs	144	25	17.4%
Less than 5 lakhs	54	6	11.1%

Table : Chances of winning based on assets [15]

IV
Major Recommendations to curb menace of Money Power in Election:-

1. The most important electoral reform to curb this menace is along with the declaration of their assets and liabilities candidates should also declare their income and sources of income at the time of nominations.

2. To make current laws on election expenses more effective, ceiling should be imposed on expenses during elections made by political parties as well.

3. There is a need for amendments to Sections 78, 81 and 84 of the RP Act, 1951 to reduce the period of filing accounts of elections expenses by contesting candidates to 20 days so that the time available for filing election petition would increase to 25 days.

4. Any candidate who fails to file their election expenses within the stipulated time should face strict penalty.

5. There needs to be a legal sanction against losing candidates also for filing an election petition who are guilty of corrupt practice in terms of Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951.

6. The relevant Sections of the RP Act, 1951 pertaining to electoral malpractices need to be amended and stricter penalties imposed. Electoral malpractices should be declared criminal offences carrying a sentence of two years or more.

7. The excessive use of money in elections vitiates democracy. Anyone who breaks the law by giving money and gifts to voters, or exceeding the legal spending limits should have his/her election set aside and should not be allowed to contest again in future any election.

8. The information given in the affidavits of the candidates on criminal charges, assets, etc. should be verified by an independent central authority in a time bound manner. Provision should be made for strong action on finding serious anomalies.

9. There is a great need to bring in financial transparency in the accounts of political parties. The Income Tax Returns and the contribution reports of political parties should be made available to public domain for scrutiny by public.

10. As political parties work for the public in public space and are responsible for making government to run the country and they also use government facilities, they should be declared as public authorities so that they come under the ambit of RTI.

11. There is need for certification of affidavit information of candidates by their respective political parties. In case the information furnished by the candidates is found incorrect, the political party should also be held accountable and if serious the party should be derecognized.

12. PAN declaration of the candidates should be made mandatory in order to keep a continued check on their transactions and dealings. If PAN not given the nomination papers filed by the candidate should be rejected. And, there should be a column in the affidavit it wherein the candidates can declare any penalty levied on them with regard to taxes.

13. A column asking for the source of income of candidates should be provided in the affidavit to be filed by candidate and in the assets part the candidates should not just disclose his assets but also the assets of all his close relatives also.

14. It also necessary that candidates should attach their IT returns with the affidavits filed by them and affidavits should be certified by the Political Parties as well.

15. Candidates standing for elections should be announced 6 months prior to elections and they should submit affidavits stating the expected and approximate amount to be spend in elections by them and of the source thereof.

16. All attempts at "curbing the cost of campaigning" are going to be unrealistic and impossible to implement without the removal of the basic cause of constantly increasing expenditure on campaigning. That will happen only when political parties return to their traditional role, that of mobilizing public opinion and acting as a mediator between the public at large and the government, and cease to function as corporate enterprises engaged in the business of winning elections at any cost. This will require (a) selecting candidates democratically and not solely on the basis of "winnability", which, in turn, will happen when (b) the internal functioning of the political parties is really and effectively democratic. These will require regulating the functioning of political parties.[16]

17. The punishment under Sections 171B and 172C, (Undue influence and bribery as electoral offences), Sec. 171G (publishing false statement in connection with election), Sec. 171H (incurring or authorizing expenditure for promoting the election prospects of a candidate) of IPC should be enhanced and made cognizable.[17]

18. Last but not the least, state funding of election should also be considered in the line of the Indrajit Gupta Committee and Law Commission Reports.

Notes and References:

1. Press Release – Analysis of Criminal, Financial and other details of newly elected MLAs of Goa Assembly Election 2012 available at www.adrindia.org
2. Press Release – Analysis of Criminal, Financial and Other details of MLAs of the Uttarakhand Assembly Election 2012, March 11th 2012 available at www.adrindia.org
3. Press Release – Analysis of Criminal, Financial and other details of MLAs of the Manipur Assembly Election 2012, March 10th 2012 by National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms available at www.adrindia.org
4. Data available at www.adrindia.org
5. Press Release – Analysis of Criminal, Financial and other details of Newly Elected MLAs of the U.P. by National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) available at www.adrindia.org
6. Analysis of Criminal and Financial Details of newly elected MLAs from Punjab, A Report by Punjab Election Watch & Association for Democratic Reforms available at www.adrindia.org
7. Most of the data are based on the data available at website of Association for Democratic Reforms
8. Press Release – Analysis of Newly Elected MLAs of 2012 Assembly Elections in Uttarakhand, U.P, Goa, Punjab and Manipur by National Election Watch and ADR, March 13th 2012, p.5
9. ibid. pp. 14, 15
10. op. cit. note 2, p.11
11. op. cit. note 6, p.11
12. Press Release – Analysis of Newly Elected MLAs of 2012 Assembly Elections in Uttarakhand, U.P., Goa, Punjab and Manipur by National Election Watch and ADR, March 13th, 2012, p.9
13. op. cit. note 5, p.18
14. op. cit. note 3, p.6
15. op. cit. note 1, p.10
16. Recommendation No 11.18 of ADR/NEW Recommendations for Electoral Reforms to Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India and Election Commission of India by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), and National Election Watch (NEW), April 2011, p.58
17. Proposal made by Election Commission of India on 5th July, 200413. op. cit. note 5, p.18

Concluded...

---

* Yumnam Premananda Singh wrote this article for e-pao.net
The writer is Assistant Professor of Law, Govt. Mizoram Law College, Aizawl and can be reached at lawprem(aT)yahoo(dot)com
This article was posted on October 08 2015.

---