What is the significance of this decision in the context of the ongoing debate on free gifts by political parties?
What is the significance of this decision in the context of the ongoing debate on free gifts by political parties?
the story So Far: On Friday, the Supreme Court referred a series of petitions seeking judicial direction to a three-judge bench that political parties that make “wild” promises of leniency should also disclose in their election manifestos that they Where can I get the money to pay? There is a change from the Court’s own stand in the context S Subramaniam Balaji Vs Tamil Nadu 2013 verdict
What happened?
In the Balaji case judgment, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had held that making promises in an election manifesto is not a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP).
However, the Supreme Court is now concerned that freebies promised by political parties to win elections could drain the exchequer. The court observed that the parties which form the government riding on the wave of their pre-poll promises of “free gifts” are actually draining the state’s finances by trying to fulfill their false promises by using public money.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has decided to reconsider Balaji’s decision.
Why did the Balaji case start?
The chain of events started during the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2006. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) released its election manifesto, announcing plans for free distribution of color television sets (CTVs) to “every household”, which did not have one when the party came to power. The party justified that TV would “provide entertainment and general knowledge to domestic women, especially women living in rural areas”. The party came to power in the elections and decided to implement its plan and took a share of Rs 750 crore from the budget for the project. The government eventually distributed 30,000 TV sets across the state. In 2011, the rival All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and its alliance also announced their election manifesto with freebies to “equal” the gifts given by the DMK. AIADMK has provided grinders, mixers, electric fans, laptop computers, four gram gold plates, Rs 50,000 checks for marriage of women, green houses, ration card holders (even for people above poverty line). ) and promised 20 kg of rice to free cattle. lamb. Sri Balaji, a resident of Tamil Nadu, challenged the schemes launched by the parties in the Madras High Court. He said the state’s expenditure from the treasury was “unauthorised, permissible and in violation of the constitutional mandate”. His case was dismissed by the High Court, following which he moved the apex court.
How did the case go?
Shri Balaji, represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar, submitted that the state cannot act in furtherance of the “singular principles of socialist philanthropy”. He argued that the promise of free distribution of non-essential items in the election manifesto is electoral bribery under section 123 of the RP Act. It is the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to examine the expenditure before it is posted. Money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State only for “public purposes”. The distribution of goods to certain classes of people was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In response, the state of Tamil Nadu protested that the promises of political parties do not constitute corrupt practices. Political parties are not states and ‘free gift’ is a vague term that has no legal status. The promises made by the party after forming the government are an obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The state is performing its duty only to promote the welfare of its people. The promises are implemented with the approval of the legislature along with various schemes/guidelines/eligibility criteria etc. Thus, it cannot be treated as a waste of public money or prohibited by any statute or scheme.
The court’s decision held that promises made by a political party cannot constitute ‘corrupt conduct’ on its part. It would be “misleading” to assume that all promises in the election manifesto would amount to corrupt practices. The manifesto of a political party is a statement of its policy. The question of implementing the manifesto arises only when a political party forms the government. This is a promise of the future government and not a single candidate. However, the court held that free gifts create an “unequal playing field”. It had asked the Election Commission of India to consult political parties and issue guidelines on election manifestos and make it a part of the model code of conduct.
Why is the court’s move to review the Balaji verdict important?
In its order, the court speculates that “free of cost a situation may arise in which the state government cannot provide basic facilities due to paucity of funds and the state is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy”. The court said it wants a transparent debate before a three-judge bench on whether an “enforceable” judicial order can bar political parties from promising and delivering ‘irrational freebies’. The case is unique as the Supreme Court is exploring whether judicial standards can be based on the political act of making it completely free.
essence
The Supreme Court referred to a series of petitions seeking judicial direction to a three-judge bench that political parties that make “wild” promises of leniency should also disclose in their election manifestos that they are required to pay Where will you get the money?
2013 Balaji The judgment said that the promises of election manifesto do not fall under the category of ‘corrupt conduct’ under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
This revision by the Supreme Court on its earlier decision is unique as the court is exploring whether judicial standards can be set on a political act promising completely freebies.