Promises in Manifesto, Even if Labelled as Freebies, Cannot Be Corrupt Practices – Karnataka High Court Dismisses Election Petition Against CM Siddaramaiah

“Manifesto promises by political parties cannot be construed as corrupt practices under Section 123 of the R.P. Act” – High Court of Karnataka dismissed a high-profile election petition which sought to set aside the election of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah from the 219 - Varuna Assembly Constituency. The core allegation was that promises made by the Congress Party in its election manifesto amounted to corrupt practices, thereby invalidating the election result.

The Court decisively rejected these allegations, holding that such promises, even if labelled as "freebies", cannot be treated as corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unless directly attributable to the candidate’s individual actions.

The petitioner, K. Shankara, a resident and voter in the Varuna Assembly Constituency, challenged the validity of Siddaramaiah’s election. The petition, filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, alleged that Siddaramaiah, through his association with the Congress Party's manifesto, had indulged in corrupt practices as per Sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(4), and 123(6) of the Act.

The manifesto included five key welfare “guarantees”: free electricity, monthly financial support to women, free food grains, unemployment allowances, and free public transport for women. According to the petitioner, these were promises of undue inducement designed to "gratify" voters in exchange for support.

The Court recorded, “It is submitted that, as the Manifesto contains the guarantees promised by the Party and has the photo of the respondent, each such person whose photo is found on the Manifesto are jointly and severally responsible for the corrupt practice under Section 123(1) and 123(2) of the R.P. Act.”

The main legal issue before the Court was whether a political party's manifesto, containing promises of benefits to the electorate, could be considered a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act, and whether such promises, if made by the party, could be attributed to the candidate.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav emphatically held that such a linkage could not be made under the current legal framework. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court stated:

“There is no word about political parties. Taking note of the conditions mandated in those sub-sections, let us test the respective stand of both the parties… it will be misleading to construe that all promises in the election manifesto would amount to corrupt practice.”

He further emphasized, “The provisions of the said Act place no fetter on the power of the political parties to make promises in the election manifesto.”

The judgment also clarified the legal interpretation of Section 123(2)(b) which provides that:

“A declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference.”

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the respondent was personally responsible for the promises, stating:

“The affixing of the signature on the Hand Out at Annexure-'M' is only in the capacity as a 'CLP Leader' and not more. The owning up of a Manifesto or the Hand Out does not take away from the Manifesto and Hand Out being admittedly an appeal by the Party to vote for its candidate.”

The Court found that the allegations lacked substance and observed:

“There is no averment in the petition as to how the aforesaid 'Guarantees' have materially affected the result of the election.”

Further, addressing the quality of pleadings, the Court remarked:

“The Election Petition is drafted in a very casual manner… with vague pleadings, factual errors and replication of pleadings from other petitions.”

The respondent, Siddaramaiah, had filed I.A. No. 1/2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, arguing that the election petition disclosed no cause of action. The Court agreed, holding that the petition did not contain material facts necessary to constitute a valid case under the R.P. Act.

Justice Yadav observed: “An Election Petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact… in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.”

Rejecting the contention that the Court should await the Supreme Court’s review of Subramaniam Balaji, the Court held:

“It is not open… to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition… High Courts must proceed to decide matters on the basis of law as it stands.”

The Karnataka High Court’s judgment is a firm reiteration of established legal principles. It affirms that election manifestos are policy documents of political parties, and unless a direct nexus is shown between the candidate's individual actions and the alleged corrupt practice, no liability can be imposed under the Representation of the People Act.

As Justice Yadav concluded:

“While the application for rejection of plaint has been filed on the ground that ‘there is want of cause of action’, however, the power of the court to reject a plaint can be exercised suo motu as well.”

The Election Petition was accordingly rejected in limine, and all connected applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2025