Case Name: Sri Shahanka J Sreedhara v. Sri B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan
Case No.: EP No. 15 of 2023
Dated: April 25, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M.I. Arun
FACTS OF THE CASE:
According to the case’s facts, the petitioner, a voter in the Chamarajpet Assembly Constituency, has contested the choice of that constituency’s victorious candidate for the Karnataka State Legislature in 2023.
As per the case circumstances, the petitioner, who is a voter in the Chamarajpet Assembly Constituency, has challenged the selection of the winning candidate for the Karnataka State Legislature in 2023 from within that constituency.
Shashanka J Sreedhara, a voter from the Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency, filed the election petition. In the Karnataka State Legislature elections of 2023, he objected to the choice of B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan, the victorious candidate, who was standing in the same constituency.
The basis for the challenge in the current election petition is that the five guarantees made by the Indian National Congress (INC) party in its manifesto—namely, (i) “Gruha Jyothi”—200 units of free electricity to every house; (ii) “Gruha Lakshmi”—Rs. 2,000/-per month to every woman head of the family; (iii) “Anna Bhagya”—10 kilogrammes of food grain per person in a BPL family per month; (iv) “Yuva Nidhi”—Rs. 3000/-per month for two years to unemployed graduates and Rs. 1,500/-per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders; (v) “Shakthi”—free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC buses—amount to corrupt practices and for that reason
The petitioners’ primary argument was that the promises stated in the party’s platform, the Indian National Congress (INC), amounted to unethical behaviour. They attempted to overturn the respondent’s election as the INC’s victorious candidate.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The primary argument put out by the petitioners was that the promises stated in the party’s manifesto, the Indian National Congress (INC), amounted to illegal activity. As the respondent was an INC candidate who won, they attempted to nullify the election of the respondent.
The petitioners’ main point of contention was that the promises made by the Indian National Congress (INC) in its platform amounted to unlawful conduct. Since the respondent was an INC candidate who emerged victorious, they endeavoured to void the respondent’s election.
First and foremost, the petitioners contended that the promises made by the Indian National Congress (INC) in its platform amounted to unlawful action. They made an effort to overturn the respondent’s election because they were an INC candidate who was elected.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had neither named the respondent candidate or levelled any specific accusations of corrupt behaviour. Instead, the Indian National Congress (INC) party’s manifesto was the centre of attention.
The reply contended that the INC’s manifesto promises are a matter of policy and are not to be classified as corrupt practices. As stated by the reply, the manifesto’s pledges were a component of social welfare measures; their financial feasibility is a different story.
The respondents said that the petitioner acknowledged during the arguments that the respondent had not been personally accused of engaging in any corrupt activities. But according to the petitioner, the INC’s manifesto was questionable, and its promised programmes would bankrupt the State Treasury and could not be put into action.
In response, the respondent said that it is the responsibility of other parties to show how the execution of these plans would affect the public treasury. Essentially, the respondent stressed that Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act does not apply to political party policy announcements, even if they contain promises or guarantees, because they are not considered corrupt acts. In the end, the court supported this position, acknowledging the significance of voters making educated choices.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Under “bribery,” any present, offer, or promise made to any individual with the intention of directly or indirectly encouraging gratification from a candidate, his agent, or any other person with the approval of the candidate or his election agent, to any person whatsoever, is considered to be the decision of a candidate to run in an election, whether to run or not, and whether to withdraw.
- Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In accordance with this rule, the respondent submitted a request to have the election petition dismissed. Based on this rule, the respondent’s opposition to the petition was taken into consideration by the court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
According to the court, a party’s announcement about the policies they plan to put into place cannot be regarded as corrupt behaviour under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
The court highlighted that voters should discuss whether or not the promises made by the INC party in its manifesto are reasonable and whether they have the impact of giving out freebies or placating a particular segment of society. Under the RP Act, the same cannot be regarded as a corrupt activity.
Regarding specific corrupt activities, the petitioner did not level any personal accusations against the respondent candidate. Rather, the promises made in the manifesto were the main focus.
The promises made in the INC manifesto were viewed by the court as social welfare measures. It is up to others to explain how the execution of these plans will affect the state treasury, even though their financial sustainability is a different matter. As per Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court acknowledged that policy pronouncements made by political parties are not equivalent to corrupt acts, even if they contain promises or guarantees. The statement underscored the significance of informed voter decision-making in assessing policy pronouncements of this nature.
In conclusion, the court recognised that knowledge is crucial when it comes to voters making decisions and that political parties’ policy statements shouldn’t be mistaken for corrupt activities under the RP Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
