Delhi High Court Rejects Retired Justice SN Dhingra's PIL Against Election Freebies, Asks Him To Approach Supreme Court In Pending Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL filed by retired Justice SN Dhingra against the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) over their political promises to distribute cash to the voters in polls. 

The judge alleged that such an act falls within the meaning of “corrupt practices.”

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the judge to approach the Supreme Court of India where a similar matter is pending adjudication in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India.

The PIL was filed by Justice Dhingra who is also the President of organization Samay Yaan (Sashakt Samaj). It was moved in the wake of the Delhi Legislative Assembly polls which has concluded now.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the retired judge submitted that the political parties try to sell the freebies at the cost of public exchequer. He submitted that apart from the cash oriented schemes offered by the parties to the voters, the PIL also raises the issue of collection of data by the political parties under the garb of monetary schemes, without explicit consent of the voters.

Advocate Suruchi Suri appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI) told the Court that the Supreme Court is already considering the issue of freebies in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case. A three judge bench is required to be set up in terms of a 2023 order, she said.

Hearing this, the Chief Justice told the retired judge's counsel that he should approach the Apex Court and seek an impleadment there.

“There are two aspects, freebies and whether it amounts to corrupt practice. This matter is already pending. The Supreme Court has taken up both the issues…You better seek impleadment there and assist the court there,” Chief Justice Upadhyay said.

Justice Gedela also told the counsel that there cannot be two parallel litigations on one issue. There may be difference on opinion, we cannot do that, Justice Gedela said.

“Having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that essentially the subject matter of this PIL petition is already engaging attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this juncture,” the Court said.

The counsel appearing for the retired judge prayed that the PIL be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Supreme Court.

On this, the Court said: “… the petitioner does not require any liberty from this Court. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court by making appropriate application. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

The plea sought a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct a thorough inquiry into the alleged corrupt practices and illegal data collected by the three political parties in questions under the garb of monetary schemes, without explicit consent of the voters.

A direction was also sought on BJP, AAP and Congress to desist from collecting personal and electoral data of voters and not to share or use the same to any third party.

A further direction was sought to that “cash-oriented schemes” be declared as unconstitutional and against the spirit of free and fair elections, as the same classify as “election manipulation.”

The plea also sought a direction on ECI to frame rules for political parties in respect of promises against cash distribution to voters and also to strengthen monitoring mechanisms to prevent further violation of electoral laws.

The PIL referred to AAP's “Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojana”, BJP's “Mahila Samridhi Yojna” and Congress' Pyari Didi Yojna” wherein the parties have promised cash benefits to the voters if they are elected to power.

“These actions violate provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Section 123(1) (Corrupt Practices), Section 127A (Unauthorised election materials), as well as Section 170 & 171 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Offences of bribery and undue influence during elections). Furthermore, these actions disregard advisory guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI),” the plea stated.

Title: JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172