Promises in an election manifesto do not constitute corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as they are not individual acts of the candidate.

ORDER :

M.I. ARUN, J.

The petitioner is a voter in Chamarajpet Assembly Constituency and he has challenged the selection of successful candidate from the said constituency in 2023 Elections conducted to the Karnataka State Legislature.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) To declare that the declaration of results of the Respondent for the Assembly Constituency- 168-Chamrajapet as void, so far as the Respondent is concerned. After calling for the records from the officers concerned regarding Form 21C and Form 21E enclosed as Annexure 'D' and 'E'.

b) To declare the results of the respondent under Section 21C of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as void after calling for the records.

c) Declaring that Respondent 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 168-Chamrajapet Assembly Constituency U/s 100(1)(b),(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

d) To declare that the result of the election of the Respondent has been materially affected by the improper reception and counting votes in favor of the Respondent as void under section 100(1)(A)(d)(iv) and disqualify him for a period of 6 years from contesting in elections;

e) To make an order regarding the corrupt practice committed by persons other than the Respondent in the election held for 168- Chamrajapet Assembly constituency and name them and take action as contemplated under section 99 of The Representation of People Act, 1951.

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

3. The ground of challenge in the instant Election Petition is that, the promises made by the Indian National Congress (INC) party in its manifesto, more particularly, the five guarantees, namely, (i) 'Gruha Jyothi'- 200 Units of Free Electricity to all the houses; (ii) 'Gruha Lakshmi'- Rs.2,000/- every month to each and every women head of the family; (iii) 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain every person in 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 through out the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses, amounts to corrupt practices and for that reason, it is prayed that the election of the respondent, who was a winning candidate from the Indian National Congress, be set aside.

4. The respondent has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint.

5. The case of the respondent is, the petitioner has not made any personal allegations against the respondent candidate as being involved in corrupt practices, but has contended that the manifesto of the Indian National Congress party amounts to corrupt practice and it is submitted that the manifesto of the Indian National Congress party amounts to a policy matter and it cannot be termed as a corrupt practice.

6. The petitioner in the course of arguments admit that he has not made any personal allegation against the respondent having indulged in any individual corrupt practices, but submit that the manifesto of the Indian National Congress is dubious and the guarantee schemes pronounced in the said manifesto has the effect of bankrupting the State Treasury and is not implementable and is made with an ulterior motive of attracting gullible voters and that itself has the effect of corrupt practices as contemplated in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (‘the RP Act for short) and that a political party has to be treated as an agent of its candidate because of which the respondent has to be considered as guilty of the same and for that reason his application is liable to be set aside.

7. Perusal of the petition and the ar