In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, presided over by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, refused to entertain the argument that commitments made by a political party in its manifesto, which may result in financial assistance to the public, constitute corrupt practices by the party’s candidates. The Court labeled this contention as “too far-fetched,” dismissing an appeal arising from the dismissal of an election petition.
The appeal stemmed from the Karnataka High Court’s decision to reject an election petition filed by a voter, Shashanka J Sreedhara, challenging the victory of B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency in the 2023 Karnataka State Legislature elections. Sreedhara contended that the promises outlined in the Indian National Congress (INC) party’s manifesto amounted to corrupt practices, thereby seeking to invalidate Khan’s election.
In response, Khan argued that the allegations against him were solely based on the party manifesto, and not on any personal wrongdoing. He maintained that manifesto pledges constitute matters of policy and cannot be construed as corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
Echoing Khan’s stance, the High Court, in its ruling, emphasized that the INC’s manifesto guarantees should be regarded as social welfare policies, distinct from corrupt practices. Quoting from a previous Supreme Court judgment, it highlighted that while these policies may face scrutiny for financial viability, they cannot be labeled as corrupt practices.
The High Court underscored that it is incumbent upon opposing parties to demonstrate how the implementation of such policies could lead to misgovernance or fiscal instability, rather than mere disagreement with the policies themselves.
Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, leaving open the question of whether manifesto promises could constitute corrupt practices for future adjudication. This ruling assumes significance as it reflects a judicial reluctance to equate political promises with electoral malpractice, emphasizing the distinction between policy choices and corrupt conduct in electoral contests.
Written by- pradyumn sharma.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments