Supreme Court seeks Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah’s response on plea challenging 2023 election
The petition alleges that the five election guarantees in the Congress’ manifesto amounted to bribery.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice seeking Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s response to a petition challenging his election from the Varuna constituency in the 2023 Assembly elections, Live Law reported.
The petition was filed by a voter from the constituency, whose earlier plea had been dismissed by the Karnataka High Court in April, Bar and Bench reported.
He alleged that the five election guarantees in the Congress manifesto for the 2023 polls amounted to bribery and corrupt practice under the 1951 Representation of the People Act. He contended that since the manifesto was issued with Siddaramaiah’s consent, the chief minister had committed corrupt practices.
The petitioner asked the court to declare Siddaramaiah’s election void and bar him from contesting polls for six years, the legal news outlet reported.
The petition cited promises made by Congress of providing 200 units of free electricity per household, a monthly payment of Rs 2,000 to women heads-of-the-family, 10 kg of foodgrain per month for each member of below-poverty-line families, financial support for unemployed graduates and diploma holders, and free bus travel for women on state-run services, Live Law reported.
The petitioner argued that schemes such as free bus travel discriminated against men and violated Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to equality, Live Law reported.
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath asked how issuing a manifesto could amount to a corrupt practice.
The court issued the notice after it was informed about a pending challenge to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling on whether pre-election promises constitute corrupt practices, Live Law reported.
In April, the Karnataka High Court rejected the plea, holding that election guarantees cannot amount to corrupt practice, Bar and Bench reported.
The court also criticised the “casual manner” in which the petition was drafted, noting inconsistencies such as paragraph numbering errors and the incorrect naming of the state chief secretary.