STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PRATHIK PARASRAMPURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Voting in elections happens generally once every five years. This one day is the culmination of a long process that begins with the announcement of the dates by the competent authority, publication of manifestos by the competing political parties, advocating for their positions and against the positions of the others in rallies, press conferences, television advertisements, and so much more. For the most part, the citizen is only at the receiving end of this information and campaign across various forms. Their voice is heard only on election day when the result of the votes cast by them is counted and notified. It is their one vote for every person that demonstrates the support expressed for a particular set of policies put forward. If it is that this one chance at expression is itself tainted, it would not be an understatement to say that the very essence of democracy, which is a rule of the people, by the people and for the people, is compromised. To put it simply, the choice exercised by the people once influenced by external factors is no longer a choice of their own. It is somebody else 's choice being thrust upon them.

(2.) These external factors can take many shapes and forms. Almost all of these forms, much like anything else in this world except for probably peace and contentment, require money. The law on its own does not permit any external factors to be thrust upon an individual 's choice. Obviously then, methods that fly under the radar in exerting influence have to be adopted. Ill-gotten, undeclared money is one of the primary forms used. It is this which is called 'black money '.

(3.) By order dtd. 5/9/2017, this Court observed that in certain constituencies including the one in which the Respondent was a candidate, some untoward means and methods were used. As such, notice was issued to the Election Commission of India; EC. The order is extracted as under: