2013 (9) TMI 947 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope of Corrupt Practices u/s 123 - Whether the promises made by the political parties in their election manifestos would amount to corrupt practices as per Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Held that - The promises made by the political parties in their election manifesto cannot be stated as corrupt practice u/s 123 of the RP Act - If we are to declare that every kind of promises made in the election manifesto is a corrupt practice, this will be flawed - Since all promises made in the election manifesto were not necessarily promising freebies per se - it will 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 was the promise of a future Government - It was not a promise of an individual candidate - Section 123 and other relevant provisions, upon their true construction, contemplate corrupt practice by individual candidate or his agent. The provisions relating to corrupt practice were penal in nature and, therefore, the rule of strict interpretation must apply and hence, promises by a political party cannot constitute a corrupt practice on the part of the political party as the political party was not within the sweep of the provisions relating to corrupt practices. As the rule of strict interpretation applies, there was no scope for applying provisions relating to corrupt practice contained in the said Act to the manifesto of a political party. It was settled law that the courts cannot issue a direction for the purpose of laying down a new norm for characterizing any practice as corrupt practice - Such directions would amount to amending provisions of the said Act - The power to make law exclusively vests in the Union Parliament and as long as the field was covered by parliamentary enactments, no directions can be issued as sought by the appellant. It was imperative to refer to the intention of the legislature behind incorporating the respective section -The purpose of incorporating Section 123 of the RP Act was to ensure that elections were held in a free and fair manner - The object of provisions relating to corrupt practices in Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Ors. 2001 (2) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT - Fair and free elections were essential requisites to maintain the purity of election and to sustain the faith of the people in election itself in a democratic set up - Clean, efficient and benevolent administration were the essential features of good governance which in turn depends upon persons of competency and good character - Hence those indulging in corrupt practices at an election cannot be spared and allowed to pollute the election process and this purpose was sought to be achieved by these provisions contained in the RP Act. Whether the schemes under challenge were within the ambit of public purpose and if yes, was it violative of Article 14 Held that - The measures relate to implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy - Therefore, the principle of not to treat unequals as equal had no applicability as far as State largesse was concerned - This principle applies only where the law or the State action imposes some burden on the citizen either financial or otherwise - Besides, while implementing the directive principles, it was for the Government concerned to take into account its financial resources and the need of the people - There cannot be a straight jacket formula - If certain benefits are restricted to a particular class that can obviously be on account of the limited resources of the State - All welfare measures cannot at one go be made available to all the citizens - The State can gradually extend the benefit. The argument of the appellant that giving of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. by the Government after adhering to due process was not an expense for public purpose could not be accepted - Judicial interference was permissible when the action of the government was unconstitutional and not when such action was not wise or that the extent of expenditure was not for the good of the State - all such questions must be debated and decided in the legislature and not in court. The founding fathers of the Constitution have also thought it fit to keep a check on Government accounts and expenses through an agency outside the Legislature also - Article 148 has created a constitutional functionary in the form of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) - CAG examines the propriety, legality and validity of all expenses incurred by the Government - The office of CAG exercises effective control over the Government accounts. Inherent Powers of the Court - Whether this Court had inherent power to issue guidelines by application of Vishaka principle Held that - There was no legislation to punish the act of sexual harassment at work place, therefore, the judiciary noting the legislative vacuum framed temporary guidelines until the legislatures passed a bill in that regard - However, in the case at hand, there was a special legislation, namely, the Representation of People Act wherein Section 123 enumerates exhaustively a series of acts as corrupt practice - Therefore, this was not a case of legislative vacuum where the judiciary can apply its inherent power to frame guidelines. Duties of CAG of India - Whether Comptroller and Auditor General of India had a duty to examine expenditures even before they were deployed Held that - The functioning of the Government was controlled by the Constitution, the laws of the land, the legislature and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India - CAG examines the propriety, legality and validity of all expenses incurred by the Government - The office of CAG exercises effective control over the government accounts and expenditure incurred on these schemes only after implementation of the same - As a result, the duty of the CAG will arise only after the expenditure had incurred.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether promises in election manifestos amount to 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act (RP Act).
2. Whether the challenged schemes fall within the ambit of public purpose and if they violate Article 14.
3. Whether the Court has inherent power to issue guidelines by applying the Vishaka principle.
4. Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has a duty to examine expenditures before they are deployed.
5. Whether writ jurisdiction will lie against a political party.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Promises in Election Manifestos as 'Corrupt Practices'
- Section 123 of the RP Act: The court examined if promises in election manifestos could be considered 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of the RP Act, which defines corrupt practices like bribery, undue influence, and other electoral offenses.
- Court's Conclusion: The court concluded that promises in election manifestos cannot be read into Section 123 as corrupt practices. The court emphasized that manifestos are statements of policy by political parties and not individual candidates. The RP Act's provisions on corrupt practices apply to individual candidates and their agents, not to political parties as entities.

Issue 2: Schemes within Public Purpose and Article 14
- Directive Principles of State Policy: The court noted that the concept of State largesse is linked to the Directive Principles of State Policy, which aim to improve living standards and provide social and economic justice.
- Public Purpose: The court found that schemes like free distribution of TVs, laptops, and other items fall within the realm of public purpose as they aim to uplift the living standards of the poor and fulfill the Directive Principles.
- Article 14: The court held that the schemes do not violate Article 14 as the principle of not treating unequals equally does not apply to State largesse. The schemes are designed to benefit specific classes based on the State's financial resources and needs.

Issue 3: Inherent Power to Issue Guidelines (Vishaka Principle)
- Legislative Vacuum: The court differentiated the current case from Vishaka, where there was no legislation on sexual harassment at the workplace. Here, the RP Act already covers corrupt practices exhaustively.
- Court's Limitation: The court stated it cannot legislate new norms for corrupt practices, as this power lies with the Parliament.

Issue 4: Duty of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)
- Role of CAG: The court clarified that the CAG's duty is to audit expenditures after they have been incurred, not before. The CAG ensures the legality and propriety of government expenses post-expenditure.

Issue 5: Writ Jurisdiction against Political Parties
- Jurisdiction: The court noted that political parties are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, writ jurisdiction does not apply to them. The appropriate remedy for corrupt practices is an election petition, not a writ petition.

Summary:
1. Election Manifestos and Corrupt Practices: Promises in election manifestos do not constitute corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RP Act.
2. Public Purpose and Article 14: The challenged schemes are within the ambit of public purpose and do not violate Article 14.
3. Vishaka Principle: There is no legislative vacuum; thus, the Vishaka principle does not apply.
4. CAG's Role: The CAG's duty arises post-expenditure.
5. Writ Jurisdiction: Writ jurisdiction does not apply to political parties; the correct forum is the Election Tribunal.

Directions:
- The court directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines for election manifestos in consultation with recognized political parties to ensure a level playing field and maintain the purity of the election process.
- The Election Commission is to include these guidelines in the Model Code of Conduct.
- The court acknowledged the need for separate legislation governing political parties' conduct in elections.