THE question of whether electoral promises should be legally enforceable has been a longstanding issue in democracies worldwide, including India. Political commitments often drive campaigns, but many promises remain unfulfilled, leading to concerns among voters about the gap between campaign rhetoric and governance.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently highlighted the issue, cautioning against what he described as revadis (freebies) offered by some parties to attract votes. PM Modi argued that these types of promises risk misleading the public and could place an unsustainable burden on state finances, reigniting discussions around ensuring that manifestos reflect honest and achievable goals.
However, establishing a legally binding framework for electoral promises is complex. Unlike commercial contracts, campaign promises are generally aspirational, lacking specific terms or timelines for fulfillment. Political parties often defend their unmet promises by citing unforeseen economic or administrative challenges.
In India, there are currently no legal provisions for prosecuting parties that fail to deliver on their campaign commitments. Some people have suggested expanding fraud laws, such as Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (previously Section 420 of the IPC), to cover knowingly false promises. But transforming electoral promises into legally enforceable commitments would require a substantial legal shift, raising questions about how much regulation is appropriate in political campaigning.
The Election Commission of India plays a central role in overseeing the electoral process and ensuring its fair conduct. In 2013, following a Supreme Court directive, the ECI introduced guidelines for political manifestos, advising parties to avoid excessive ‘freebie’ promises that could unduly influence voters. Nevertheless, the ECI’s role remains largely advisory, without the power to penalise parties for unfulfilled promises. This lack of enforcement authority means that accountability often rests with the voters rather than with legal or regulatory measures.
Worldwide challenges
Other democracies face similar challenges. In the United Kingdom, courts typically refrain from intervening in political promises, viewing them as issues for public scrutiny rather than judicial oversight. Some countries in the European Union require parties to include cost-benefit analyses in their manifestos, although they do not impose penalties if these promises go unmet. In the United States, political promises are generally viewed as non-binding, with accountability largely maintained through media scrutiny and public debate rather than legal enforcement.
Efforts to make electoral promises legally binding come with significant challenges. Such requirements could limit political flexibility, making parties more cautious and, perhaps, unwilling to propose bold policies. Furthermore, proving that a party knowingly made an unrealistic promise could be difficult, as many unfulfilled commitments stem from genuine obstacles.
Alternative measures
While directly enforcing electoral promises through law remains controversial, some alternative measures could improve transparency and accountability. One suggestion is to require parties to report annually on the progress of their manifesto commitments, giving voters a clearer picture of their performance. Public Interest Litigations could also serve as a mechanism for addressing blatantly misleading promises, providing a way for citizens to seek judicial intervention when campaign commitments appear intentionally deceptive. Some have also proposed that parties be required to conduct financial feasibility assessments of their promises, which could discourage unrealistic or unsustainable commitments.
There is growing public support for more responsible and transparent campaigning. Prime Minister Modi’s comments reflect this sentiment, underscoring the importance of realistic promises that do not place undue strain on public resources. Although binding electoral promises legally remains a complex and divisive issue, some believe that a stronger role for the ECI in evaluating the feasibility of manifestos could be a constructive step.
