Introduction:
In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the election petition filed by K.M. Shankara against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s victory from the Varuna constituency in the 2023 assembly elections. The petitioner alleged that Siddaramaiah engaged in electoral malpractices by promising various welfare schemes, termed as “freebies,” which he claimed amounted to bribery and undue influence under the Representation of the People Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
K.M. Shankara contended that the five guarantees promised by the Congress party—’Gruha Jyothi’ (200 units of free electricity), ‘Gruha Lakshmi’ (₹2,000 monthly to women heads of families), ‘Anna Bhagya’ (10 kg of food grains per month to BPL families), ‘Yuva Nidhi’ (₹3,000 per month for unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 for diploma holders), and ‘Uchita Prayana/Shakthi’ (free bus travel for women)—were essentially inducements to voters. He argued that these promises were made with the intent to gratify the electorate and influence their voting behaviour, thus constituting corrupt practices under Sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(4), and 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act.
Furthermore, Shankara’s counsel, Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi, asserted that schemes like the Shakti scheme, which offers free bus travel exclusively to women, violated Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against men. She emphasised that such gender-specific benefits, without a clear rationale or legislative backing, amounted to unequal treatment under the law.
Respondent’s Defence:
On the other hand, Siddaramaiah’s defence, presented through his counsel, argued that the election petition lacked legal merit and was politically motivated. They maintained that the welfare schemes in question were part of the Congress party’s manifesto and were aimed at social welfare, not electoral gain. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013), the defence highlighted that promises made in election manifestos do not constitute corrupt practices unless they are prohibited by law.
The defence also pointed out that the petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence linking the welfare schemes directly to the inducement of voters in the Varuna constituency. They emphasised that the implementation of these schemes was a policy decision taken after the elections and not a direct quid pro quo for votes.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, dismissed the election petition. The court held that the promises made in the election manifesto did not amount to corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act. It further noted that the petitioner failed to establish a direct link between the welfare schemes and the inducement of voters in the Varuna constituency.
The court also observed that the schemes in question were aimed at social welfare, and their implementation post-elections indicated a policy decision rather than an electoral bribe. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding Siddaramaiah’s election as valid.