By the Court.—Heard Sri Ajmal Khan Advocate in person, Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent No. 3 State of U.P.

2. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No. 4 keeping in view the nature of dispute involved at this stage and in view of the judgment that we are delivering today.

3. The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the election manifesto of the respondent No. 4 Samajwadi Party while fielding its candidates for contesting Assembly Elections of the State in 2012 promulgated a manifesto with a view to influence voters and cast their votes in favour of the said said party, declaring false promises knowingly, which amounts to a corrupt practice and even otherwise, such practices in order to be prevented in future, should be taken notice of by the Election Commission of India for issuing necessary directions. He, therefore, submits that this public interest litigation should be entertained and directions be issued for appropriate action.

4. In order to substantiate his submissions, Sri Khan submits that so far as corrupt practice is concerned, any form of undue influence as defined under Section 123 (2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 would amount to a corrupt practice. The respondent Samajwadi Party on the basis of such false promise particularly with regard to distribution of laptops in the field of education, secondly with regard to giving the status of scheduled caste to the most backward Muslim minority Community and thirdly, of providing electronically/solar charged rickshaws to manual rickshaw pullers were all false promises, that were given knowingly and which were not within the capability of the party to extend. This would amount to an inducement of voters resulting in a corrupt practice. He, therefore, submits that such a political party should be de-recognized and deprived of its right and privileges under the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968. Consequently, the Election Commission of India should withhold all such privileges to the Samajwadi Party.

5. Sri Khan further prays that a mandamus be issued directing the Election Commission of India to issue reformative orders to all political parties in order to avoid allurement of voters on false, deceptive and wrong promises for which the Election Commission of India has ample powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.

6. Replying to the said submissions, learned counsel for the respondents particularly, Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General has invited the attention of the Court to the Apex Court decision in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2013) 9 SCC 659 [paragraph-84] to submit that any promise made in an election manifesto of a political party, would not fall within the definition of a corrupt practice. Even otherwise, if a corrupt practice has resulted in materially affecting the results of any elections that were held in the year 2012, the same could be made subject-matter of an election petition by the aggrieved person of a particular constituency which is not the case here, hence the writ petition for such a relief would not be maintainable.

7. On the second issue of issuing any orders for reformation, Sri Singh has relied on paragraph 79 of the above noted decision to urge that guidelines cannot be framed by the Court in this regard.

8. Countering the said submissions Sri Khan contends that the judgment in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji (supra) as relied upon by the learned Advocate General is not on the issue so as to prevent this Court from issuing any directions to the Election Commission of India for taking up reformative measures. Sri Khan relies on the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another, AIR 2002