India attained independence as a democratic nation on the day that she was released from the grip of British Rule, creating a new platform where everyone has the freedom to express their political views. This is how democracy is defined, where a leader is chosen after a vote is taken. The voters will select their alternatives from the options presented and place them in the ballot boxes. The candidate with the most support will be selected as the leader. We refer to this as an election.

India is a "Democracy where only citizens can elect the government," according to the constitution. Without the citizens' active participation, democracy will be useless. Free and fair elections are democracy's core principle. A watchdog is needed to stop this threat so that every person can exercise their right. However, the election could be highly notorious as it sees power shifts and battles for the seat that could kill the essence of the fairness and freedom of the election. Even with a watchdog, there are still a lot of unethical activities going on during elections that not only violate a person's fundamental right to vote but also undermine the idea of democracy as a whole.

The main elements necessary to guarantee the idea of free and fair elections are liberty and equality in political activities. Elections that are free and fair imply that no one is coerced into using their legal authority; that they can think for themselves and make judgments without interference from anybody else; and that they are conducted without bias or undue influence from anyone. Elections must be held fairly in order to maintain the efficient operation of a state. A voter's vote is not influenced or controlled by a party's rules, their religion, their sex, their language, their caste, their creed, etc. Additionally, one is not required to engage in corrupt activities like bribery or the use of subpar methods to defame an opponent's campaign. The hallmark of a democratic country is therefore free and fair elections.

Even though it is the greatest democracy, India still uses unethical tactics to win elections. Using these tactics is illegal, and the Indian penal code's Chapter IXA, Section 171 specifically addresses election-related offences. Section 2 of the 1920 Indian Elections Offenses and Inquiries Act established this Chapter. For acts including bribery, personation, undue influence, and publishing false remarks to smear someone's reputation during elections, among others, it lays down penalties. This chapter's principal goal is to guarantee free and fair elections and to give people the freedom to exercise their right to vote.

Undue influence at an election is defined as the voluntary interference or attempted interference with a person's right to stand or not stand as a candidate, to withdraw or not withdraw from being a candidate, to vote or not vote at an election. The case discussed below, Ram Dial v. Sant Lal, is from 1958 and relates to section 171C of the IPC.

Any unauthorised interference with or effort to tamper with such election rights, whether direct or indirect, is corrupt. Any attempt at intervention, whether direct or indirect, must have the candidate's or his election agent's permission. The case came to light when a religious leader persuaded his or her followers to support a certain candidate and not only persuaded but also made a hukum to so, meaning that disobeying his or her directive would incur heavenly wrath or spiritual judgement.

Undue influence at an election is defined as the voluntary interference or attempted interference with a person's right to stand or not stand as a candidate, to withdraw or not withdraw from being a candidate, to vote or not vote at an election. The case discussed below, Ram Dial v. Sant Lal, is from 1958 and relates to section 171C of the IPC. Any unauthorised interference with or effort to tamper with such election rights, whether direct or indirect, is corrupt. Any attempt at intervention, whether direct or indirect, must have the candidate's or his election agent's permission. The case came to light when a religious leader persuaded his or her followers to support a certain candidate and not only persuaded but also made a hukum to so, meaning that disobeying his or her directive would incur heavenly wrath or spiritual judgment.

Facts

• This is an appeal based on a certificate of fitness issued by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab in Chandigarh. It is directed against the court's decision and order from November 25, 1958, which dismissed an appeal against the election tribunal's Hissar order from September 14, 1958, which annulled the election of the appellant to the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
• The appellant won the general seat in Sirsa, a two-member district, while a Harijan candidate—respondent No. 2 before this Court—was the second successful candidate. The initial respondent ran for the position of general.
• Sant Guru Maharaj Pratap Singh of Jiwan Nagar, the religious head of the Namdharis sect of the Sikhs, had some personal grievances against Shri Devi Lal of Chautala, a prominent Congress Leader of the constituency, and the chief supporter of the petitioner at this election. Respondent No. 1, fully aware of this grievance, approached him and through him also approached Maharaj Charan Singh of Sikanderpur, the religious head of the Radha Swaini Samaj, and got issued Farmans (orders) by both these religious heads to their followers in this constituency to the effect that their Dharma required them to wholeheartedly support respondent No. 1 and to oppose the candidature of the petitioner. The Farmans stated that any follower who disobeyed would face the wrath of the aforementioned Gurus and be subject to Divine displeasure.
• While canvassing for respondent No. 1, Diwans were held in various villages and towns of the constituency. During these tours, the Farmans of the two Gurus were reiterated, and followers were threatened with expulsion from the sect and samaj if they disobeyed the Gurus' wishes. However, at the time, there were very few followers of Guru Charan Singh.
• In a large Dewan of his followers, Sat Guru Maharaj Pratap Singh himself preached and commanded that voting for and supporting the respondent was the Dharma of all his followers. This was done in the presence of the respondent.
• The respondent also produced and disseminated posters featuring Satguru Pratap Singh's Farmans.
• On April 28, 1957, the first respondent submitted an election petition contesting the appellant's election. We are only interested in the claims relating to "corrupt activities" due to the conclusions of the Election Tribunal and the High Court. The election was contested on a wide range of grounds, thus exhausting all defenses permitted by the election law.

Legal Issue

• In this case, the question of whether 'undue influence' conduct is considered to have been performed only if it results in some concrete consequence was raised.

Legal History

Legal Provisions

• Offenses pertaining to elections are covered in Chapter IXA, Sections 171A through Section 171I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Section 171A: "Candidate" and "Electoral right" defined.
• Section 171C: Undue influence at elections.
• Section 171F: Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.
• Section 123 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, also deals with offenses related to elections.

Arguments

From the Petitioner's Side

• The main clause (2) of Section 123 has been argued to not apply to the parties in this case since it only covers threats of physical danger or property damage, not what is known as "spiritual undue influence," which is explicitly protected by sub-el. (ii) of proviso (a) to clause (2) of Section 123.
• It was further argued that the word "deemed" would suggest that the proviso is an addition to the main clause of Section 123's el. (2), meaning that it has been added to the definition to cover what the main clause did not actually cover.
• Additionally, it has been argued that el. (2) forbids exerting excessive influence over specific voters, using the cases of Cheltenham, Nottingham, and North Durham as instances.
• Further, it was asserted that an electoral right, as defined in Section 79(d) of the Act, includes the right to vote or not to vote in an election.

From the Respondent's Side

• If the religious and spiritual leader's influence has the effect of instilling in the voters a sense of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, then with the contents of the previously published poster unambiguously showing the command's obligatory character, the respondent stated that the Farman was motivated by a personal grievance rather than religious considerations.

Judgement
A Supreme Court appeal was made by Ram Dial. In Ram Dial v. Sant Lal and Others, AIR
1959 SC 855, a three-judge Supreme Court panel led by Justices Sinha, Kapoor, and Hidayatullah upheld the Punjab High Court's ruling and ruled that spiritual leader or religious leaders may campaign for a candidate. But when a spiritual leader or religious leader specifically gives the electors no choice, not only by issuing written Hukum, Farman, or Fatwas but also by speeches stating that they must vote for the candidate, implying that disobeying his mandate would result in divine displeasure or spiritual censure, the case would clearly fall under the purview of the corrupt practise of undue influence.

In the case of Ram Dial v. Sant Lal, the Supreme Court also discussed whether an act would qualify as "undue influence" only if it actually had an impact. Contrary to English law, the Court explained, what is important under Indian law is how activities are carried out when they are intended to obstruct the free exercise of any electoral right rather than the actual impact produced. The exercise of legal rights without intending to impede voting rights would not be considered undue influence.

The religious leader implied in his speeches that every Namdhari must vote for the appellant, implying that disobeying his order would result in divine displeasure or spiritual censure, which effectively deprived the Namdhari electors of their right to vote, according to the findings of both the Tribunal and the High Court.

In the case of Ram Dial v. Sant Lal, the Supreme Court also discussed whether an act would qualify as "undue influence" only if it actually had an impact. Contrary to English law, the Court explained, what is important under Indian law is how activities are carried out when they are intended to obstruct the free exercise of any electoral right rather than the actual impact produced. The exercise of legal rights without intending to impede voting rights would not be considered undue influence.

The religious leader implied in his speeches that every Namdhari must vote for the appellant, implying that disobeying his order would result in divine displeasure or spiritual censure, which effectively deprived the Namdhari electors of their right to vote, according to the findings of both the Tribunal and the High Court.

The legislation in India and England did not have the same definitions of "undue influence" in elections. While Indian law focused on the performance of activities that were intended to obstruct the free exercise of an electoral right rather than the actual effect generated, English law focused on the individual aspect of the exercise of undue influence.

Analysis Of Judgement
In this judgment, the question of whether an 'undue influence' conduct is considered to have been performed only if it results in some concrete consequence was raised. The Supreme Court emphasised that, unlike English law, what is relevant under Indian law is the commission of conduct intended to obstruct the free exercise of any electoral right, rather than the actual outcome obtained. In that case, the appellant's election had been nullified because he had persuaded some religious leaders to issue verbally issued religious edicts or farmans forbidding community members from voting for the respondent.

The court decided that religious leaders had the right to utilise their influence to persuade voters and others to vote for and canvass for a certain candidate. However, if religious leaders give instructions or farmans implying that those who disobey their mandate would incur Divine wrath or spiritual condemnation, the case will be considered one of 'undue influence,' as defined by section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court refused to reverse the lower courts' findings, holding that the appellant's election was invalid owing to undue influence conduct.

The religious leader has the right to utilise his position to support a particular candidate by casting a ballot for him and encouraging others to do the same. He is entitled to share his opinions about the specific traits of the candidates. However, it will be an abuse of his great influence if the words he uses in a document or utters in his speeches leave the people addressed by him with no choice in the exercise of their electoral rights. Such behaviour on his part will only be a use of his great influence among a specific section of the voters in the constituency.

The religious leader would be within his rights and his influence, no matter how great, could not be said to have been abused if he told people who were receptive to his influence that he preferred the appellant to the other candidate because, in his opinion, he was more deserving of the electors' confidence for good, bad, or neutral reasons.

However, in this instance, the case is clear because it appears, in accordance with the findings of the High Court and the Tribunal, that the religious leader essentially gave the Namdhari electors no freedom of choice by issuing the hukum or Farman as well as by implying in his speeches that disobeying his mandate would result in divine displeasure or spiritual censure.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held in Jeetmohinder Singh Sidhu v. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate on the basis of Ram Dial v. Sant Lal that the allegations made in the current election petition that the religious leader and the political wing of Dera Sacha Sauda had merely asked its adherents to vote for the Indian National Congress/respondent, without implying that nonobedience will carry divine.

The High Court thoughtfully addressed this aspect of the case, and we do not believe it is necessary to reiterate all of their findings other than to say that we concur with them. However, it is important to remember that the punishment or these traditional penalties are now largely ineffective and not as severe to deter crime from continuing. Every candidate who runs for office hopes to win and sees themselves as the best option. To achieve this goal, they are free to use unfair methods and meddle with the impartial election process.

Election-related offences must be addressed seriously and the penalty altered in order to maintain a fair election process. It is appropriate to take the Fifth Law Commission's suggestions into account and make changes where necessary.

There have been some encouraging advancements and brave efforts to increase awareness in the struggle to stop these offences. To address the core of the crime-politics link, real transformation will require considerably more comprehensive measures. As with any market, there are fundamental supply and demand characteristics that promote trading in India's electoral economy. And in this instance, politicians with criminal histories are providing what parties and people want: strong, well-funded candidates.

Conclusion
Although democracy is the most liberal form of government, it is nevertheless crucial for citizens to participate in the system responsibly. Elections are one of the most important tools for the formation of democracy, as was previously stated and agreed. The continuation of governance cannot be referred to as democracy in the true sense of the word if the elections are not legitimate, transparent, and peaceful in accordance with the established legislation and standards. Therefore, having free and fair elections is crucial. In a single sentence, it can be claimed that elections must be observed as a celebration, a festival of democracy. The Constitution of India has fortunately given its citizens adequate laws and constitutional provisions to ensure free and fair elections. Even so, there are some flaws that can be fixed through time.

References:

1. Ram Dial vs Sant Lal and others on 23 April, 1959 - Indiankanoon.org, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1628718/ (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
2. Ram Dial v Sant Lal and others on 23 April 1959 - Judgement, LawyerServices, https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ram-Dial-Versus-Sant-Lal-and-Others-1959-04-23 (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
3. Post author By Hemant More, Ram Dial vs Sant Lal and others archives The Fact Factor, https://thefactfactor.com/tag/ram-dial-vs-sant-lal-and-others/ (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
4. Ram Dial vs. Sant Lal, https://www.thelaws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=618591961000 (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
5. Supreme Court of India, Home | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, https://www.main.sci.gov.in/ (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
6. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab [accredited by NAAC WTH ..., https://www.rgnul.ac.in/PDF/f70e6347-cf18-4d18-b75b-aa60475669a9.pdf (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
7. Journal of, peace research - JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43920613 (last visited Oct 30, 2022).
8. Diganth Raj Sehgal - et al., Offences relating to elections in IPC iPleaders (2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/offences-relating-elections-ipc/ (last visited Oct 30, 2022).