Promises in election manifestos by political parties do not amount to corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

ORDER :

(M. G. UMA, J.)

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RP Act’) against the respondent seeking the following reliefs:

a) To declare that the declaration of results of Respondent No.1, Annexure for the Assembly Constituency- 40-Chittapur(SC) as void;

b) Declaring that Respondent No. I has committed Corrupt practice U/s 123(1),123(2),123(4), 123(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and he was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat of 40- Chittapur(SC) Assembly Constituency U/s 100(1)(b),(1)(d)(iv) of the representation of People Act, 1951;

c) To declare that the result of the election of the Respondent No.1 has been materially affected by the improper reception and counting votes in favor of the Respondent no.1 as void under Section 100 (1)(A)(d)(iv) and disqualify him for a period of 6 years from contesting in elections;

d) To declare the votes received and counted in favor of the Respondent No.1 as improper reception and treat them as void, wasted and thrown away votes;

e) To make an order regarding the corrupt practice committed by persons other than the Respondent No.1 in the election held for 40- Chittapur(SC) Assembly constituency and to name them and take action as contemplated under Section 99 ;

f) Pass such other orders deemed necessary under section 125(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951; and g) To reward costs and such other consequential relief/ reliefs in the circumstances of the case."

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent being a successful candidate in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 40-Chittapur(SC) constituency, in the general election that was held on 10.05.2023, indulged in corrupt practice as referred to under Section 123 (6) of RP Act by being part of the election manifesto and proclaiming to give various guarantees, which is nothing but promising freebies to win over the voters. It is also contended that the caste certificate produced by the respondent while filing his nomination as he belongs to Scheduled Caste was not in a proper format. But the certificate of caste produced by him is for the purpose of contesting Gram Panchayat election for the period 2020-2021, which was made used for the General Assembly election during 2024. Thereby, the respondent has deceived the public by manipulating the facts, which attracts Section 100 (1)(2)(a) of RP Act.

3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has misled the general public regarding his educational qualification. During 2009 election, he declared that he has studied upto PUC. In 2018, he stated that he has studied PUC during 1996-98. But in the present election during 2024, he has stated that he has studied PUC in the year 1996. But he has given a statement which was reported in the Kannada Prabha daily newspaper that he has studied in law school, which also amounts to corrupt practice as it is an attempt to deceive the general public and to mislead them.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent has adopted the tactics of threatening the opponents by filing false and frivolous complaints. He filed one such complaint with Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi, which was registered in Crime No.113 of 2023. He has also filed the complaint against another person, which was registered in Crime No.33 of 2023 of Sadashivanagara Police S