Team Blitz India
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 lead to direct or indirect financial help to the public at large, will also amount to corrupt practice by a candidate of that party.
Terming it as “too far-fetched”, a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said: “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 go into such a question elaborately.”
Dismissing a petition filed by Shashanka J Sreedhara challenging the election of a Congress candidate from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency in Karnataka, the Bench left the question of law “open to be decided in an appropriate case”.
Pre-poll freebies
A PIL against poll-eve irrational freebies promised by political parties is already pending before the top court. The petitioner had alleged that commitments by the Congress in its election manifesto for the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election were direct and indirect financial help to the public that amounted to corrupt electoral practice.
Sreedhara had filed a petition against the winning candidate BZ Zameer Ahmed Khan, contending that the five guarantees made by Congress in its manifesto amounted to corrupt practice. The Karnataka HC had held that a party’s announcement about the policies they plan to put into place cannot be regarded as corrupt behaviour under Section 123 of the RPA.
High Court ruling
“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,” the high court had said.
