Regulating election expenditure first step to combat corruption: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by three former municipality members who had been disqualified for failing to lodge an account of how much they had spent on the election [K Srinivas and Ors vs The Karnataka State Election Commission]. .Justice Krishna Dixit stated that mandating such accounts of expenses is to ensure transparency in the electoral process and accountability of candidates. "Maintaining the purity of the electoral process requires a multi pronged approach, which includes removing the influence of money and criminal elements in politics and introducing strict standards of financial transparency in the functioning of the political parties or candidates. Regulating election expenditure is the first step toward combating corruption," the single-judge stated..The petitioners were disqualified from continuing as elected municipal members by the State Election Commission as they had failed to lodge their electoral expenditure within the prescribed period of 30 days. .The High Court noted that Section 16C (failure to lodge an account of election expenses) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act provides for disqualification of elected members if they fail to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within 30 days from the date of declaration of the victorious candidate. .Section 16C of the Karnataka Municipalities Act corresponds to Sections 77(1) (account of election expenses and maximum thereof) and 78 (lodging of account with the district election officer) of the Representation of People's Act, read with Rule 86 (particulars of account of election expenses) of the Conduct of Election Rules, the High Court observed.Accordingly, the Court observed that these provisions are also to remove corruption and bribery in the election process. The Court placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh where it was stated,"The primary purpose of the diverse provisions of the election law which may appear to be technical is to safeguard the purity of the election process..." The High Court stated that an election is a politically sacred act, which is not of one person or one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. .The High Court Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla, which considered the evil of 'big money' and had stated: "The other objective of limiting expenditure is to eliminate as far as possible, the influence of big money in the electoral process. If there were no limit on expenditure, political parties would go all out for collecting contributions and obviously the largest contributions would be from the rich and affluent who constitute but a fraction of the electorate. The pernicious influence of big money would then play a decisive role in controlling the democratic process in the country. This would inevitably lead to the worst form of political corruption and that in its wake is bound to produce other vices at all levels.".The response of the petitioners that they were busy in attending to the problems of the electoral constituencies and were not aware of the requirement of lodging the accounts of electoral expenditure was not accepted by the single-judge. Such an unreasonable excuse would lay a bad precedent with potential for abuse, the Court opined. The High Court termed their responses in this regard 'parrot-like replies'. .It, therefore, dismissed the petition.Senior counsel MR Rajagopal with Advocate Saraswathi M represented the petitioners, Additional Advocate General R Subramanya with Additional General Advocate KR Nithyananda represented the State respondents. .[Read Order]