Election Promises Violated Article 14: Petitioner Tells Karnataka High Court In Plea To Set Aside CM Siddaramaiah's Election

Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi made the submission while arguing for petitioner K M Shankara, who has filed an Election petition seeking to set aside the Election of Chief Minister Siddaramiah from the Varuna Assembly constituency alleging that he committed electoral malpractices in the 2023 assembly elections.

Nesargi stated that in the case on hand five things are promised, free bus rides only for women only, which directly infringed Article 14, as men cannot be deprived. It was stated that such policies promised by the incumbent CM, all violated the constitution. 

“It can be given to the needy, but you cannot say only women,” she said.

Further, it was submitted that the state government cannot use the consolidated funds for providing freebies. It was said “I don't say the government has no power, but a special bill is to be passed like a Money bill. In these instant cases no money bill is passed, it is a violation of taxpayers money.”

She added, “If these freebies are not put an end to, our people of the state will not be safe.”

Stating that this court was not bound to follow the judgment passed by the coordinate bench in the case of B Lakshmidevi and Rizwan Arshad, 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 178 and Shashanka J Sreedhara and B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan, 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 199 wherein the election petitions filed on similar grounds were rejected.

Nesargi claimed “My case is that R1 (Siddaramiah) admits that he has canvassed for the entire constituency and State, public meetings are held, advertisements have been given. Guarantee is signed by Siddaramaiah. It is not by Indian National Congress, a political party. He is asking for votes based on the guarantees. Therefore, he has acted as an agent and himself is a candidate. Entire election held in Karnataka has to be declared as void.”

The coordinate bench had while dismissing the petitions relied on the Apex court judgment in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu, (2013).

Distinguishing the same it was said “The freebies shown in the manifesto are not similar to those shown in that case. The beneficiaries must be identified, where have they been identified, all women can travel free, where are the guidelines milords, none are there. No law is established or sanction from the cabinet is received.”

“In Madras they formed a committee and then sent the recommendation/report to the government etc. In the Balaji case all the details were furnished by the Tamilnadu Govt to the Supreme Court. Eligibility norms were prescribed, for all items they had shown as freebies.”

Further, it was argued that it is for the respondent, the burden is on him to prove that none of the freebies is contrary to Chapter 3 of the Constitution. Moreover, the law laid down in the Balaji case is a lis between them (parties therein) only and not applicable to others.

“The S Subramaniam Balaji Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu, (2013), judgement is per-incuriam and lordships cannot be looked into as it is contrary to S R Bommai's case,” it was said.

Nesargi also pressed that in an election petition, the validity declared not only by statute but also the law declared by the Supreme Court, can be challenged. To which the court said, “It is an interesting argument and I am looking at it with an open mind, we will examine it.”

The court then adjourned the hearing post-Dusshera vacation.

Background

The Congress party's manifesto provided five guarantees to the people of Karnataka: 'Gruha Jyothi' - 200 units of free electricity to all houses, 'Gruha Lakshmi' - ₹2,000 every month to each and every woman head of a family, 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain per month to every member of a below poverty line (BPL) family, 'Yuva Nidhi' - ₹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' - free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses.

The petition claims, “The five guarantees are the corrupt practices amounting to bribery and also undue influence under section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act. The said guarantees are in the nature of offer and promises made by the candidate and by the Indian National Congress party. They are in the form of gratification to the electorate of Varuna constituency and with the object of directly inducing the electorate to vote for the congress party candidate—Siddaramiah.

Case Title: K V Shankara And Siddaramiah

Case No: EP 13/2023.