- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Rejects Argument That...
Supreme Court Rejects Argument That Political Party's Promises In Manifesto For Financial Aid Will Amount To 'Corrupt Practice' By Candidate
Gyanvi Khanna
27 May 2024 12:28 PM IST
The Court has left the question of law open for consideration in an appropriate case.
The Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal arising out of the dismissal of an election petition, refused to accept the argument that the commitments by a political party in its manifesto, which eventually leads to direct or indirect financial help to the public at large, will also amount to corrupt practice by a candidate of that party. The Court termed this argument as being "too...
The Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal arising out of the dismissal of an election petition, refused to accept the argument that the commitments by a political party in its manifesto, which eventually leads to direct or indirect financial help to the public at large, will also amount to corrupt practice by a candidate of that party. The Court termed this argument as being "too far-fetched."
"The contention of the learned counsel that the commitments by a political party in its manifesto, which eventually lead to direct or indirect financial help to the public at large, will also amount to corrupt practice by a candidate of that party, is too far-fetched and cannot be accepted. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, we need not to go into such question elaborately," the Court stated.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, while dismissing the appeal, said that it does not need to deal with the question elaborately in the present case and left the above question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. It may be noted that a PIL seeking to stop political parties from promising 'freebies' in election manifestos is pending before the Supreme Court.
The appeal was filed against the Karnataka High Court's order dismissing an election petition filed by a voter, Shashanka J Sreedhara, from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency challenging the selection of the successful candidate B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan in the 2023 Elections conducted to the Karnataka State Legislature.
The main contention was that guarantees in the manifesto amounted to corrupt practices and for that reason, it was prayed that the election of the Khan, who was a winning candidate from the Indian National Congress (INC), be set aside.
Per contra, Khan submitted that no personal allegations had been made against him, and the petitioner's argument only rested on the party's manifesto. Based on this, it was contended that the manifesto of the INC party amounts to a policy matter, and it cannot be termed as a corrupt practice.
Agreeing with the same, the High Court had held that a declaration by a party as to the policy that they intend to bring about cannot be considered a corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
To bolster this, a single judge bench of Justice M I Arun also referred to the Apex court judgment in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu., (2013) 9 SCC 659. Therein, it was opined, “The five guarantees of the Indian National Congress have to be considered as social welfare policies. Whether they are financially viable or not is altogether a different aspect. It is for the other parties to show as to how implementation of the said schemes amounts to bankruptcy of the State Treasury and it can only lead to mal governance of the State. It is possible that they can be termed as wrong policies under the given facts and circumstances of the case, but cannot be termed as corrupt practices.”
In view of these facts and circumstances, the High Court concluded that the five guarantees of the Indian National Congress will have to be considered as social welfare policies. Whether they are financially viable or not is altogether a different aspect. Further, it is for the other parties to show how the implementation of the said schemes can only lead to misgovernance of the State. It is possible that they can be termed as wrong policies under the given facts and circumstances of the case but cannot be termed as corrupt practices, the Court said.
Case Title : SHASHANKA J. SREEDHARA vs. B.Z. ZAMEER AHMED KHAN
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 410
