Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This petition has been filed, in public interest, praying for the following reliefs:

"a) an appropriate writ in the nature of declaration declaring inter alia that offer of transfer of cash by way or in the guise of freebies in election manifestos is a corrupt electoral practice under section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as the guidelines framed by the Respondent No.2 as part of its Model Code of Conduct pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659;

2. During the course of the hearing today, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not press their prayers against the respondent nos.3 and 4 and the respondent nos.3 and 4 have been accordingly deleted from the array of the parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the issue of transfer of cash in the garb of distribution of „freebies‟ is an unprecedented corrupt electoral practice in India, and the guidelines issued by the respondent no.2, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 659, do not address the said issue, and are vague, cryptic and open to be interpreted to all such practices to continue.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Supreme Court in S.Subramaniam Balaji (supra) did not consider the issue of promise to give „freebies‟ in the form of cash as part of electoral promises made by the political party in their election manifesto as constituting "corrupt practice" and „bribery‟ in terms of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He submits that the „Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of the Political Parties and Candidates‟ (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines") issued by the respondent no.2 in purported compliance of the judgment in S.Subramaniam Balaji (supra) are vague and do not fully address this issue, which in fact was not considered by the Supreme Court in the referred judgment. He submits that the Supreme Court was only considering the issue of freebies in the form of certain material benefits, not being cash, promised by the political parties.

"Directions

85. Although the law is obvious that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as „„corrupt practice‟‟ under Section 123 of RP Act, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people. It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree. The Election Commission through its counsel also conveyed the same feeling both in the affidavit and in the argument that the promise of such freebies at government cost disturbs the level playing field and vitiates the electoral process and thereby expressed willingness to implement any directions or decision of this Court in this regard.