Observing that the five guarantee schemes announced by the Congress in its election manifesto cannot be termed as ‘corrupt practices’ as per the apex court’s verdict on the promises made in election manifestos by political parties, the High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Rizwan Arshad from Shivajinagar Assembly constituency in the elections held last year.
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty passed the order while rejecting the petition filed by B. Lakshmidevi, a voter of Shivajinagar constituency in Bengaluru.
In the present petition, the High Court pointed out that the allegation of corrupt practice against Mr. Arshad was solely based on the election manifesto published by the Indian National Congress.
However, the High Court pointed out that the apex court, in its 2013 verdict in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu, had held the assurance or the guarantees made in the election manifesto by the political parties cannot be considered as corrupt practice under the Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
For the purpose of Section 123 of the Act, the High Court said the promise or assurance should be made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent.
The High Court also noted that the apex court, in S. Subramaniman Balaji’s case, had ruled that Section 123 of the Act speaks about a candidate or his agent or any other person, and not about the political parties, and therefore, the promise made by a political party cannot constitute a corrupt practice by a candidate.
“In the absence of any material which would prima facie show that the five guarantees or promises published in the election manifesto by the Congress party, of which the respondent was a candidate in the assembly election, was published with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, the allegations cannot be termed to be corrupt practice for the purpose of the Act,” the High Court observed.
Though the petitioner has contended that the election manifesto was published by the Congress Party with the consent of Mr. Arshad, the High Court pointed out that “there is no material placed before the court in support of such allegation”.
Though the petitioner’s advocate said that verdict in S. Subramaniman Balaji’s case cannot be applied as the apex court itself had referred it to a larger bench, the High Court said that it has to decide the matter on the basis of the law as it stands.
