Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that it must be accepted as a constitutional convention that a political party stands committed when elected to power to its manifesto and when it is found to have gone against its manifesto it be asked to seek a fresh mandate. He has urged that the party in power in the State has besides other promises sought vote and obtained it on the promise of total prohibition from which promise it has backed out. According to the learned counsel Amendment Act has been passed by the State Legislature in breach of the manifesto and thus in violation of the constitutional convention. He has drawn our attention to a passage in 'the Law and the Constitution' by Jennings 5th Edn. In the Chapter dealing with the conventions of the Constitution before speaking on the mandate at page 176 Jennings has pointed out:

"The short explanation of the constitutional conventions is that they provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law; they make the legal constitution work; they keep it in touch with the growth of ideas. A constitution does not work itself; it has to be worked by men. It is an instrument of national co-operation, and the spirit of co-operation is as necessary as the instrument. The constitutional conventions are the rules elaborated for effecting that co-operation. Also, the effects of a constitution must change with the changing circumstances of national life. New needs demand a new emphasis and a new orientation even when the law remains fixed. Men have to work the old law in order to satisfy the new needs. Constitutional conventions are the rules which they elaborate."

15. It follows thus that a promise or proposal in the election manifesto cannot provide to those who vote for a political party a right to claim that the elected representatives must implement the manifesto and that there is a breach of the Constitution or the constitutional convention if they do not implement it. In the instant case the legislature of the State cannot be said to have done anything which can lead to the inference that it has withdrawn its endeavours to prohibit consumption of intoxicating liquor.