The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that promises made by a political party in its manifesto, which result in direct or indirect financial aid to the public, should be considered a corrupt practice by the party’s candidates.
The Court described this argument as “too far-fetched” and unnecessary to elaborate on in the present case. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal, indicating that the broader question of law could be addressed in a future, appropriate case.
Background and Context
The appeal was filed against a Karnataka High Court order that dismissed an election petition from Shashanka J. Sreedhara, a voter from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency. Sreedhara challenged the election of B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan, a successful candidate from the Indian National Congress (INC) in the 2023 Karnataka State Legislature elections. The petitioner argued that the INC’s manifesto promises amounted to corrupt practices, thereby warranting the nullification of Khan’s election.
Arguments and Rulings
Khan countered that no personal allegations were made against him, and the petitioner’s arguments were solely based on the party’s manifesto. He asserted that the manifesto represented party policy, not corrupt practice. The Karnataka High Court agreed, stating that a party’s policy declarations cannot be considered corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
Justice M.I. Arun of the High Court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013), which concluded that party manifesto promises are social welfare policies. The viability of these policies is a separate issue, and opposing parties must demonstrate how such policies could lead to state financial mismanagement. The Court recognized that while these policies could be criticized as misguided, they do not constitute corrupt practices.
Conclusion
The High Court and Supreme Court both concluded that the promises made in the INC’s manifesto should be viewed as social welfare policies rather than corrupt practices. The question of their financial viability remains open for political debate, but such promises cannot be legally classified as corrupt practices under the current framework.
This ruling aligns with a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking to prevent political parties from promising ‘freebies’ in election manifestos. The Court’s decision leaves the door open for future consideration of the broader implications of such promises.
Case Details
Case Name: Shashanka J. Sreedhara vs. B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Justices: Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
Related Case: S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
