Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid five guarantees are the corrupt practices amounting to bribery and also undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act. It is alleged that the five guarantees are in the form of gratification to the electorates of the constituency with the object of directly inducing the electorates to vote in favour of Indian National Congress party candidates. The petitioner has also provided the estimated expenses for the proposed five guarantees and has stated that the same would be a burden on the State Exchequer. The five guarantees are the freebies assured in the election manifesto which is attacked by the petitioner on the ground that the same are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground that they are contrary to Articles 38 & 39 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondent.

7. The respondent has filed IA-1/2023 under Order ViI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') read with Section 85 of the Act, with a prayer to reject the election petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is averred that the freebies and guarantee schemes promised in a election manifesto would not amount to corrupt practices having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Subramaniam Balaji's case supra. It is stated that the election manifesto is a declaration of public policy and the future promises made by the political party if the Government is formed by the said political party, and the same cannot be considered as a promise made by the candidate to induce the voter. It is also stated that since the petition does not contain the particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of the respondent including the details about when and where the corrupt practice took place, the petition does not comply the requirement of Section 83 of the Act.

(v) Whether the writ jurisdiction will lie against a political party?

60. With this background, let us analyze the contention of the appellant. The gist of appellant's argument is that promises of freebies such as colour TVs, mixer-

grinders, laptops, etc., are in form part of an election manifesto of a political party but in substance is a bribe or inducement under Section 123. Thus, it is the stand of the appellant that the promise of this nature indeed induces the voters thereby affecting the level playing field between the candidates, which in turn disrupts free and fair election. Therefore, the appellants suggested for construing the promises made in the election manifesto as a corrupt practice under Section 123 of RP Act. He mainly relied on the principle that one cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.

61. As appealing this argument may sound good, the implementation of this suggestion becomes difficult on more than one count:

61.1 Firstly, if we are to declare that every kind of promises made in the election manifesto is a corrupt practice, this will be flawed. Since all promises made in the election manifesto are not necessarily promising freebies per se, for instance, the election manifesto of a political party promising to develop a particular locality if they come into power, or promising cent percent employment for all young graduates, or such other acts. Therefore, it will be misleading to construe that all promises in the election manifesto would amount to corrupt practice. Likewise, it is not within the domain of this Court to legislate what kind of promises can or cannot be made in the election manifesto.