New Delhi, Dec 8 The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea challenging the election of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah from the state’s Varuna Assembly constituency.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep issued notice to Siddaramaiah on a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the Karnataka High Court’s April 22 decision, which had dismissed a voter’s election petition on the grounds of “want of cause of action” as well as “being barred by law”.
A single-judge Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav of the Karnataka HC had termed the pleadings as “vague”, “casually drafted”, and largely a “replication” of earlier petitions.
“The plaint is liable to be rejected both on the ground of ‘want of cause of action’ as well as being barred by law,” Justice Yadav said.
The petition, filed by a voter from the Varuna constituency, claimed that the Congress party’s five poll guarantees constituted bribery and undue influence under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act).
It alleged Siddaramaiah, as the party’s candidate, was jointly responsible for these promises since his photograph appeared on the manifesto and he purportedly distributed “guarantee cards”.
Allowing the application filed by Siddaramaiah under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Karnataka High Court held that the petition lacked material facts, disclosed no cause of action, and was barred by law.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case, it reiterated that manifesto promises by a political party cannot constitute a corrupt practice by an individual candidate.
Justice Yadav also dismissed the plea that the election result was materially affected due to alleged violations of the Constitution and Model Code of Conduct.
“There is no averment in the petition as to how the aforesaid ‘Guarantees’ have materially affected the result of the election,” the order had stated.
It may be recalled that three other identical petitions have already been dismissed by coordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor