Karnataka HC dismisses plea challenging CM Siddaramaiah’s election from Varuna constituency
A voter had argued that Siddaramaiah’s election from Varuna Assembly seat be declared void as the ‘five guarantees’ in the Congress’s election manifesto amounted to corrupt practices.
2 min read
Siddaramaiah’s counsel argued that the allegations of corruption were not substantiated, with the policies in the manifesto being welfare schemes and not corrupt practices. (File Photo)The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s election from the Varuna Assembly constituency, alleging that the ‘five guarantees’ promises in the Congress’s manifesto were corrupt practices under the Representation of People (RP) Act.
“The ‘guarantees’ which are promised freebies in the manifesto cannot be considered to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123 of R P Act in light of the law laid down by the apex court…in the case of legislators belonging to the Indian National Congress Party who had contested elections for Karnataka Legislative Assembly for the term 2023 to 2028, identical allegations have been made in election petitions filed against them,” a single-judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said on Tuesday.
The election petition was filed by K Shankara, a voter in the Varuna constituency, who argued that the election results should be declared void on account of corrupt practices under the Act. He argued, amongst other contentions, that the ‘five guarantees’ in the election manifesto amounted to a corrupt practice and those whose photos appeared on those manifestos, like Siddaramaiah, would be liable.
Siddaramaiah’s counsel argued that the allegations of corruption were not substantiated, with the policies in the manifesto being welfare schemes and not corrupt practices. It was also pointed out that, as per the Supreme Court case of S Subramaniam Balaji v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, promises in a manifesto would not count as corrupt practices.
The Karnataka High Court agreed with the contention that the Supreme Court had dealt with the question of manifestos, observing that similar petitions against other Congress leaders had also been dealt with.
Siddaramaiah’s counsel had also pointed out certain errors and repetitions from similar petitions. The high court stated that this indicated a “very casual attitude” in drafting an election dispute. “It must be noticed that an election petition has serious repercussions and by law it is mandated that an election petition requires careful drafting and the present petition does not evidence attention to necessary details and is drafted in a very casual manner,” the high court said.
You May Like
Photos
