In News:

• The Supreme Court referred to a three-judge Bench a series of petitions seeking a judicial direction that political parties who make wild promises of largesse should also reveal in their poll manifestos where they will get the money to pay for them.
• The reference is a shift from the court’s own stand in the Subramaniam Balaji vs Tamil Nadu judgment of 2013.

What’s in today’s article:

• Representation of Peoples Act – RP Act 1950, RP Act 1951, corrupt practices under RP Act 1951
• News Summary

Representation of Peoples Act

• Article 324 to 329 of Part XV of the Indian Constitution contains provisions related to the conduct of free and fair elections in India.
• These provisions empowered Parliament to make laws to regulate the electoral process.
• In pursuance of these provisions, the Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Representation of the People Act,1951.

Representation of the People Act, 1950

• RPA Act 1950 deals with the following aspects of electoral process:
  • Qualification of voters.
  • Preparation of electoral rolls.
  • Delimitation of constituencies.
  • Allocation of seats in the Parliament and state legislatures.

Representation of the People Act,1951

• RP Act 1951 was enacted before first general elections. The act provides for the actual conduct of elections in India.
• It deals with the following aspects of the election
  • Actual conduct of elections;
  • Administrative machinery for conducting elections;
  • Poll;
  • Election offences;
  • Election disputes;
  • By-elections;
  • Registration of political parties.

Corrupt practices as defined under RP Act 1951

• Section 123 of RP Act 1951 defines the corrupt practices in the electoral process. Following practices have been defined as the corrupt practices:
  • Bribery - Any gift or offer or promise or gratification to any person as a motive or reward
  • Undue influence - any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right
  • Promoting hatred - The promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language.
  • Furnishing incorrect information - The publication of any statement of fact which is false in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature.
  • Hiring of vehicle - The hiring or procuring of any vehicle for the free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station.
  • The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention with the approved limit is also a corrupt process.

News Summary

• In the 2013 Balaji case judgment, the Supreme Court had held that making promises in election manifestos do not amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act (RP).
• The Supreme Court has therefore decided to revisit the Balaji verdict.

Key highlights of the 2013 Judgment

• The apex court held that:
  • It would be misleading to construe that all promises in the election manifesto would amount to corrupt practice.
  • The manifesto of a political party is a statement of its policy.
  • The question of implementing the manifesto arises only if the political party forms a government.
  • It is the promise of a future government and not of an individual candidate.
• However, the court agreed that freebies create an uneven playing field.
• It had asked the Election Commission of India to consult political parties and issue guidelines on the election manifesto and make it a part of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

Significance of the current decision of SC to review the 2013 judgment

• Burden on exchequer and associated worries
  • The court foresees that freebies may create a situation wherein the State government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds and the State is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy.
• Need for transparent debate
  • The court wants a transparent debate before the three-judge Bench on whether an enforceable judicial order can stop political parties from promising and distributing irrational freebies.
• Unique in nature
  • This case is unique as the Supreme Court is exploring whether judicial parameters can be set on a purely political act of promising freebies.