Promises Published In Election Manifesto Of Political Parties Doesn't Amount To Corrupt Practices By Contesting Candidates: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by a voter in Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency, seeking to declare the election of Rizwan Arshad as Member of Legislative Assembly as void, on allegation of indulging in corrupt practice.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by B Lakshmidevi, saying,

“Since for the purpose of Section 123 of the Act, the promise or assurance should be made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, in the absence of any material which would prima facie show that the five guarantees or promises published in the election manifesto by the political party, of which the respondent was a candidate in the assembly election, was published with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, the allegations cannot be termed to be corrupt practice for the purpose of the Act.”

The Indian National Congress in its manifesto had assured the electorates that in the event of party coming to power, the five guarantees assured by them would be implemented. The plea alleged the same to be "corrupt practices" amounting to bribery and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act.

The respondent opposed the plea saying that the petitioner has failed to produce a single material to substantiate any such allegation of corruption. It was argued that the promise made in the election manifesto would not amount to corrupt practices committed by an individual candidate. Reliance was placed on the Apex court judgment in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (2013), wherein it is said that such publication in an election manifesto by a political party cannot be construed as corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123 of the Act.

Respondent further submitted that no guarantees or assurances were given in his personal capacity. It was also pointed out that all five guarantee schemes have been implemented in the State.

The bench referred to the contents of the election petition and relying on S Subramaniam Balaji (supra) saidm “Though allegation has been made that with the consent of the respondent the election manifesto was published by the political party, there is absolutely no basis or material in support of such a allegation.”

Court also referred to Apex court judgment in the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonakr v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009), wherein it observed that the court has to find as to whether the plaint discloses real cause of action or illusory cause of action created by clever drafting or suppression and the courts have to be vigilant and if the suit is found to be vexatious amounting to abuse of process of court, the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be exercised.

The bench said “In the present case, the allegation of corrupt practice is publication of election manifesto by the political party assuring five guarantee schemes. In S.Subramaniam Balaji's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such publication in an election manifesto by a political party cannot be construed as corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123 of the Act. Therefore, cause of action for filing the election petition does not arise and based on the material facts which constitutes the cause of action, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.”

The court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that S.Subramaniam Balaji's case supra is referred to the larger bench and the said judgment cannot be made applicable since the correctness of the said judgment is doubted.

In doing so it relied on the Apex court judgment in the case of UT of Ladakh v. Jammu Kashmir National Conference (2023), wherein the court observed that “...the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless 44 specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it."

Accordingly, it rejected the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi FOR Advocate Bindu V for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate K.N Phanindra FOR Advocate Latha S Shetty for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 178

Case Title: B Lakshmidevi AND Rizwan Arshad

Case No: ELECTION PETITION No.14/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order