6.7. Ruling on Election Manifesto

In a petition filed by S Subramaniam Balaji, challenging the state's decision to distribute freebies, the Supreme Court said that freebies promised by political parties in their election manifestos shake the roots of free and fair polls, and directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines for regulating contents of manifestos.

It was stated in the petition that the freebies amounts to bribery under Section 123(1) of the RPA, 1951. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the promises made by a political party are violative of Section 123(1) of the RPA, 1951. The provisions of the RPA place no fetter on the power of political parties to make promises in the election manifesto, the court held.

The court held that the concept of state largesse is essentially linked to the Directive Principles of State Policy. Whether the state should frame a scheme, which directly gives benefits to improve the living standards or indirectly does so by increasing the means of livelihood, is for the state to decide and the role of the court is very limited in this regard. It held that judicial interference was permissible when the action of the government was unconstitutional and not, when such action was unwise or when the extent of expenditure was not for the good of the state.

The court, however, agreed with the appellant that distribution of freebies of any kind undoubtedly influenced all people.

Considering that there was no enactment that directly governed the contents of the election manifesto, the court directed the EC to frame guidelines for the same in consultation with all the recognised political parties. The court also suggested the enactment of a separate law for governing political parties.