Introduction:
In the case of Vijay Kumar v. Election Commission of India, the Delhi High Court examined the maintainability of a petition challenging the election promise made by the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The petition questioned the legality of the announcement under the Mukhya Mantri Mahila Samman Yojana, which proposed a monthly stipend of ₹2,100 for women voters in Delhi. Justice Jyoti Singh questioned whether the plea, filed as an election petition, was appropriate and suggested that it might instead be considered as a public interest litigation (PIL). The Court has sought submissions on the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for further hearing.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, argued that the announcement of the Mahila Samman Yojana by the AAP government constituted a misuse of state resources and was designed to influence voters in the upcoming elections. Kumar submitted that the scheme, promising ₹2,100 monthly to women holding voter ID cards in Delhi, was made with political motives rather than genuine public welfare considerations. He filed a complaint on January 3, 2025, with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging that the scheme violated the Model Code of Conduct. The petitioner contended that despite his complaint, the ECI had taken no action, prompting him to approach the High Court for expeditious disposal of the complaint. Kumar also sought an injunction against the further collection of forms for the scheme by AAP workers, arguing that it amounted to undue influence on voters.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents, representing AAP and the Delhi Government, maintained that the Mahila Samman Yojana was a genuine welfare scheme aimed at empowering women in Delhi. They argued that the petitioner’s claims were baseless and lacked evidence to prove that the scheme violated the Model Code of Conduct. The respondents submitted that election promises are an integral part of political campaigns, and courts should not interfere in matters of policy unless there is a clear violation of the law. Further, the respondents contended that the petition lacked the necessary grounds to be treated as an election petition and that the petitioner should have filed a PIL if he believed the scheme was against the public interest.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court refrained from making a substantive judgment on the validity of the Mahila Samman Yojana but focused on the issue of maintainability of the petition. Justice Jyoti Singh remarked that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the plea could be classified as an election petition. The Court observed that an election petition must strictly adhere to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs the conduct of elections and the resolution of disputes arising from them.
The Court directed Vijay Kumar to provide submissions clarifying the maintainability of his plea and explore whether it could be treated as a PIL. Justice Singh noted that a PIL might be a more suitable forum to address grievances related to alleged misuse of public resources or electoral misconduct. The Court also clarified that any decision on the scheme’s legality or the actions of the ECI would only follow after resolving the maintainability issue. The matter was adjourned for further hearing, with the Court emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules while addressing electoral issues.