Question:

Principle: Anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure, shall be guilty of offence of interfering with free exercise of right to vote.
Facts: During election campaign period one candidate X told the voters that if they do not vote for her, voters will be cursed because the election candidate is the God’s own child and those who do not vote for her, they will not be liked by God.

Show Hint

Be cautious in election campaigns, as invoking divine threats or promises to influence voters constitutes illegal interference.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • X has committed an offence.
  • X has not committed an offence because she only narrated what she felt.
  • X has not committed an offence because she has freedom of speech and expression.
  • X has not committed an offence because she did not compel anyone to vote for her.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

The principle clearly states that any attempt to induce or influence voters through threats or promises based on divine consequences is an offence, as it interferes with the free exercise of the right to vote. In this case, X is inducing voters by stating that if they do not vote for her, they will face divine displeasure. This is an improper inducement, which is an offence under election laws.
Thus, the correct answer is (A).
Option (B) is incorrect because merely narrating one’s beliefs or thoughts is not allowed if it influences the voting process. Option (C) is incorrect as freedom of speech does not allow one to induce voters by invoking divine displeasure. Option (D) is incorrect because the fact that she did not directly compel voters still makes her action an offence under the law.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The question is about whether invoking divine displeasure to sway voters crosses the line into an offence. Let's go through the options.

  1. X has committed an offence: The principle squarely covers inducing or attempting to induce a voter by telling them they will face divine displeasure if they vote a certain way. X told voters that not voting for her would bring a curse and God's disapproval, which is exactly this kind of inducement, so X has committed the offence described.
  2. X has not committed an offence, because she only narrated what she felt: Framing the threat as a personal belief does not change its effect on the voters, who are still being told that a bad outcome will befall them if they vote differently. The principle looks at whether the voter is being induced through fear of divine consequences, not at how the speaker dresses up the statement.
  3. X has not committed an offence, because she has freedom of speech and expression: Freedom of speech does not cover statements that the principle specifically singles out as an offence against free and fair voting. Allowing this defence would let any candidate use divine threats and call it protected speech, which the principle is designed to prevent.
  4. X has not committed an offence, because she did not compel anyone to vote for her: The principle covers inducing or attempting to induce, which does not require actual compulsion or a guaranteed result. Telling voters they will face divine displeasure is itself the induction, whether or not it succeeds in changing anyone's vote.

Since X's statement fits the exact conduct the principle targets, warning voters of divine consequences for not voting for her, she has interfered with the free exercise of the right to vote.

So the correct answer is X has committed an offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

Each wrong option here tries to carve out an excuse the principle simply does not recognise. It helps to name exactly what excuse each one is reaching for and why it does not exist under the principle.

  1. X has committed an offence: This option applies the principle without reaching for any excuse, X's statement that non-voters would be cursed and disliked by God is exactly the divine-displeasure inducement the principle targets.
  2. Not an offence, since she only narrated her feelings: This option reaches for a personal-belief excuse, but the principle looks at the effect of the statement on voters, a warning of divine consequences, not at how the speaker frames or feels about that warning.
  3. Not an offence, due to freedom of speech: This option reaches for a constitutional excuse, but the principle specifically singles out this category of statement as an offence, and no general free-speech carve-out is written into it.
  4. Not an offence, since she did not compel anyone: This option reaches for a results-based excuse, requiring proof that votes actually changed, but the principle punishes inducing or attempting to induce, which is complete the moment the statement is made, whether or not it succeeds.

None of the excuses reached for, personal belief, free speech, or lack of compulsion, appear anywhere in the principle's own terms, so X's statement remains squarely within the offence it defines.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions