State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs Prathik Parasrampuria (Supreme Court of India)
Election Cash Cannot Vanish into a Legal Black Hole: Supreme Court Mandates Reasons, Tracking and Time-Bound Investigation
In State of Karnataka v. Prathik Parasrampuria, the Supreme Court considered the wider problem of black money and unlawful inducements during elections. The proceedings arose from a raid during the 2014 Bellary Lok Sabha by-election, in which ₹20.48 lakh in cash, a laptop, cheque books and a pen drive were seized from the respondent’s premises on suspicion that the money was intended to bribe voters. The Karnataka High Court had quashed the FIR for absence of particulars regarding the proposed recipients and mode of bribery.
Treating free and fair elections as integral to democracy and the rule of law, the Supreme Court examined Election Commission procedures concerning flying squads, surveillance teams, seizure of cash, investigation of electoral offences and withdrawal of prosecutions.
The Court emphasised that mere possession of cash does not automatically establish an electoral offence. Seizure must be based on reliable information or reasonable suspicion, and the authority must record the factual nexus between the cash or property and the suspected electoral malpractice.
To strengthen transparency and prevent both misuse of cash and harassment of innocent persons, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Every election-related seizure must be reported within 24 hours to the competent District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or court, supported by written reasons showing a prima facie nexus with an electoral offence.
- Investigations should, as far as possible, be completed within one year of registration of the FIR. Any delay must be recorded and communicated to the Election Commission.
- Investigating officers must submit quarterly status reports to the Election Commission through the designated nodal officer.
- If a Static Surveillance Team finds cash exceeding ₹10 lakh, the information must be forwarded to the Income-tax Department.
- High Courts may designate courts for expeditious disposal of election-related cases involving candidates, MPs and MLAs.
- A prosecution against an election candidate cannot be withdrawn merely because of a change in political power; prior approval of the concerned High Court is mandatory.
- Courts were directed to bring pending cases arising from recent Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to their logical conclusion expeditiously.
The Court observed that an unresolved investigation cannot indefinitely hang over a candidate’s reputation. Equally, voters have a right to know whether a candidate was involved in bribery, inducement or other corrupt electoral practices before the next election cycle.
