Plea In Karnataka High Court Challenges CM Siddaramaiah's Election, Alleges Electoral Malpractices

The Karnataka High Court will hear the plea challenging the election of Chief Minister Siddaramiah on September 21.

The Election Petition was filed seeking to set aside the election of Chief Minister Siddaramiah from Varuna Assembly constituency alleging that he committed electoral malpractices in the 2023 assembly elections.

The petitioner who is a voter from the constituency, alleged that the Congress party promised "freebies" on coming to power and that seeking votes on such promises amounts to a corrupt practice.

Today, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the 'Sarva janangada shanthiya thota', the manifesto released by the Indian National Congress prior to the 2023 State assembly elections, violated the Election Commission of India's guidelines for election manifestos.

The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court case of S.Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, 2016, where it was held that promises made by political parties are not corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Court had directed the Election Commission to consult political parties and frame guidelines on election manifestos.

The petitioner argued that as per the Model Rules of the Election Commission, the political parties are required to submit a copy of their 'manifesto' to the Election Commission. However, it was argued that the manifesto of INC was not submitted to the Election Commission. Since it was not submitted, the petitioner contended that it cannot be considered as a manifesto and thus the promises made amount to corrupt practice.

It was further contended that the promise of 'Grusha Lakshmi', which provides ₹2,000 every month to every woman head of a family and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi', which provides free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It was argued that providing cash and free bus travel to only women is contrary to Article 14.

Further, the petitioner contended the 'Yuva Nidhi', which promised ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi' also offended Article 14.

The petitioner also argued that such schemes have to be introduced as a money bill in the state legislature. It was stated that schemes, where free money is provided, cannot be done without following law and procedure.

Referring to the manifesto, the petitioner argued that it alleges the Union government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pursued the politics of hate, and bigotry, and snagged in propaganda. The petitioner contended that these actions amount to corrupt practices.

After hearing the arguments of the petitioner, the Single Judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav listed the matter for further hearing on September, 21.

Case Title: K V Shankara And Siddaramiah

Case No: EP 13/2023.