Karnataka CM gets SC notice on election from Varuna seat in 2023

THe sublime margaret court on mon sought-after(a) the response of mysore chief minister Siddaramaiah on a petition challenging his election in the 2023 assembly elections for allegedly promising freebies in his party manifesto.A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the petition filed by K Shankara, a voter in Siddaramaiah’s constituency Varuna, who alleged that such pre-poll promises seeks to disturb the level playing field during elections and amounts to a “corrupt practice” –– a ground provided under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA) to challenge the election of a winning candidate.The bench was apprehensive if this could be a ground to contest an election, saying, “How can a declaration in a manifesto amount to corrupt practice?”Shankara’s lawyer, however, pointed out that the issue of whether election freebies or pre-poll promises made by political parties and candidates amounts to “corrupt practice” is squarely under consideration before the top court.A three-judge bench is considering whether a 2013 decision of the top court in S Subramaniam Balaji required reconsideration. This decision held that pre-election promises do not amount to corrupt practice. It was then that the court agreed to entertain the petition.The Indian National Congress (INC) released its poll manifesto for the 2023 Karnataka assembly elections, assuring that upon coming to power, five guarantees would be fulfilled. This includes ‘Gruha Jyothi’ (200 units of free electricity to all households), ‘Gruha Lakshmi’ ( ₹2,000 every month to each and every women head of the family); ‘Anna Bhagya’ (10 kgs of food grains to every person in BPL family per month); ‘Yuva Nidhi’ ( ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders); and ‘Shakthi’ (free travel to all women throughout in state transport buses).The Karnataka high court had on April 22 this year dismissed the petition against which the appeal was filed in the top court. The high court had gone by the 2013 judgment maintaining that it is bound by the law as it exists, even as it noted that the challenge to the verdict is pending consideration before the top court.Shankara sought to bring pre-poll promises under “bribery”, which is defined as a corrupt practice under Section 123 of RPA. Under the Act, bribery refers to “any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person” with the object to induce any person.