NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission (EC) on a petition challenging the practice of political parties promising freebies during election campaigns.
A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notices to the government and the poll panel regarding a petition filed by Bengaluru resident Shashank J Sreedhara.
The petition, submitted by advocate Srinivasan, calls for the EC to take steps to prevent political parties from offering freebies during the pre-election period. It argues that the unregulated promise of freebies imposes a financial burden on the public exchequer and lacks any mechanism to ensure that pre-election promises are fulfilled after votes are secured. This petition has been linked with other similar pleas.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear petitions opposing the promise of election freebies after senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing lawyer and public interest litigant Ashwini Upadhyay, called for an urgent hearing.
Upadhyay's plea calls for a total ban on populist measures used to gain political favor, arguing that such promises violate the Constitution. It also requests the EC to implement deterrent measures to curb this practice. According to the plea, offering irrational freebies before elections unfairly influences voters, disrupts a level playing field, and compromises the integrity of the electoral process.
The petition further contends that the trend of political parties offering freebies with electoral gains in mind poses a threat to democratic values and undermines the spirit of the Constitution. It equates this practice with bribery, arguing that it is used to retain power at the expense of the public exchequer, which could harm democratic principles.
The petition also seeks a directive for the EC to amend the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, adding a condition that prohibits political parties from promising or distributing irrational freebies from public funds during the election period. Additionally, it asks the court to declare that the promise or distribution of private goods or services not intended for public purposes violates several articles of the Constitution, including Article 14.
A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notices to the government and the poll panel regarding a petition filed by Bengaluru resident Shashank J Sreedhara.
The petition, submitted by advocate Srinivasan, calls for the EC to take steps to prevent political parties from offering freebies during the pre-election period. It argues that the unregulated promise of freebies imposes a financial burden on the public exchequer and lacks any mechanism to ensure that pre-election promises are fulfilled after votes are secured. This petition has been linked with other similar pleas.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear petitions opposing the promise of election freebies after senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing lawyer and public interest litigant Ashwini Upadhyay, called for an urgent hearing.
Upadhyay's plea calls for a total ban on populist measures used to gain political favor, arguing that such promises violate the Constitution. It also requests the EC to implement deterrent measures to curb this practice. According to the plea, offering irrational freebies before elections unfairly influences voters, disrupts a level playing field, and compromises the integrity of the electoral process.
The petition further contends that the trend of political parties offering freebies with electoral gains in mind poses a threat to democratic values and undermines the spirit of the Constitution. It equates this practice with bribery, arguing that it is used to retain power at the expense of the public exchequer, which could harm democratic principles.
The petition also seeks a directive for the EC to amend the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, adding a condition that prohibits political parties from promising or distributing irrational freebies from public funds during the election period. Additionally, it asks the court to declare that the promise or distribution of private goods or services not intended for public purposes violates several articles of the Constitution, including Article 14.
You may also like
Islamabad to Host 23rd SCO Meeting on October 16, What's on Focus?
People 'feel faint' looking at 'world's scariest rollercoasters' with 128mph speeds
Assembly polls in Jharkhand in two phases on Nov 13 and Nov 20
Rajnath Singh lays foundation for Navy's VLF Station in Telangana
Late Queen 'left uncomfortable' after King Charles's gesture at Meghan Markle's wedding
Edu confirms immediate Arsenal priority after surprise announcement
'Everything on table,' says Canadian foreign minister when asked about sanctions on India
Ayushman Bharat Yojana: You can get Ayushman card offline, know the complete process here
Bank Of Maharashtra Announces Recruitment For 600 Apprentices Across India, Check All Details; Direct Link To Apply Here
BoI Wadala East Branch Organizes Awareness Meeting on Online Fraud Prevention under VAW 2024
This Morning host's absence explained as viewers fear fan-favourite is being 'phased out'
Plea in SC seeks enforcement of 'Sexual Harassment Act' in religious institutions, targets Isha Foundation
Indian Railways: If you are traveling without a ticket in a train, how much is the fine? Do know the rules
PM Surya Ghar Yojana: If you want to join the scheme or are facing any problem, then you can call on this helpline number
Stay warm while working from home with 'incredibly comfortable' fleece-lined thermal leggings
Rachel Reeves slams 'jobs tax' hike in resurfaced clip - as she now plans to do the same
PM Kisan Nidhi: Nine days have passed, has the stuck 18th installment still not come in the account? So know the reason here
India studying $2 billion incentive plan for greener boats
Delhi CM Atishi chairs high-level meet to curb pollution in national capital
No impediment in appointment of MLCs: Maharashtra govt to HC