clause (1) (ii) wherein it has been said that whoever accepts any gratification, either for himself or

for any other person, as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to
induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery.

The second way of committing bribery is by accepting gratification. So, bribery under this section is
possible either by giving gratification as stated under the first part of the first clause or by accepting
gratification as stated by the second part of the first clause.

2.2.2. There is a proviso clause as well which clarifies that a declaration of public policy or a
promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.

Pre-election promises made by the political parties are in furtherance of declaration of public policy
or a promise of public action .Since the announcements of schemes and policies are purely policy
and fiscal decision of the state ,they do not constitute the offence of bribery . . It proceeds on the
assumption that a declaration of public policy or promise of public action or the mere exercise of a
legal right can interfere with an electoral right and therefore it provides that if there is no intention
to interfere with the electoral right it shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of
this Section.

According to the second clause of this section, a person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or
attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

In other words, a gratification is deemed to have been given in any of the four cases, viz., where a
person offers gratification, or where he agrees to give gratification, or where he offers to procure
gratification, or where he attempts to procure gratification.

The second clause, therefore, further explains ‘bribery by giving gratification’ which has been
explained in clause (1) (i) of this section. The third clause of this section further explains ‘bribery by
accepting gratification’ which has been explained in clause (1) (ii) of this section. According to the
third clause, a person who obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be
deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing
something which he has no intention to do, or as a reward for doing something which he has not
done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.

T. N. Angami V. Smt. Ravolueu, AIR 1972 SC. The court held that the promise not made to a
particular voter or voters but to the general body of voters without distinguishing between those
who were favorably inclined and those who were not is not a corrupt practice.

Deepak Ganpatrao Salunke v. Government of Maharashtra.

 The Bombay High Court held that statements made by a member of ruling political alliance to a
political party that if it supported the alliance in the parliamentary elections one member of that
party would be made the deputy Chief minister, does not amount to giving offer to any individual
with respect to exercising his electoral right in a particular manner and cannot be called as giving
gratification under section 171-B of the Code

 Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen Case:

o In 2017, the SC in ‘Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen held that an election will be annulled if votes are sought in the name of a candidate’s religion,
race, caste, community, or language, as per Section 123 (3) which prohibits the same.

 SR Bommai v. Union of India:

o In 1994, the Supreme Court’s ruling in ‘SR Bommai v. Union of India’, said that the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly
prohibited, citing subsection (3) of Section 123 of the RPA Act, 1951.

 S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu:

o In 2022, the SC while reconsidering its 2013 judgment in ‘S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu’, it held that promises of freebies cannot
be termed a corrupt practice.

o However, the matter is still yet to be decided.

2.3 That the allegation of corrupt practices is false since there is no criterion to decide whether the
promises are irrational or not .

It is contended that there lies no yardstick to determine whether promises are irrational or not. The
concept of rationality has to change according to the everchanging socio economic conditions. The
meaning of essential commodities or basic needs too cannot be defined in a straight jacketed
formula. Certain promises when made might be projected of being but after its implementation on a
future date can subserve a larger purpose. Some promises are falsifiable while the others tend to be
unfalsifiable. Then pre-election promises or freebies per se may not be categorised as a corrupt
practice. Rather those promises made with no intention to be fulfilled or irrational promises to
evoke materialistic desires in the minds of voters or a ploy to attract vote banks must be scrutinized.
Without a yardstick being laid down or a reasoning being given as to what categories of promises are
considered as irrational, per se, freebies promises are not a form of bribe to voters.

Promise/distribution of irrational freebies from public funds before election to lure voters is
analogous to the bribery and Undue Influence under Section 171B and 171C of the IPC, 1860.