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.
About:
The 2013 Balaji judgment states that election manifesto promises do not amount to ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.
This revisit by the Supreme Court on its earlier judgment is unique as the court is exploring whether judicial parameters can be set on a purely political act of promising freebies.
In its order, 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”.
The court said it 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’.
The case is unique as the Supreme Court is exploring whether judicial parameters can be set on a purely political act of promising freebies.
Dear Student,
You have still not entered your mailing address. Please enter the address where all the study materials will be sent to you. (If applicable).
