Karnataka High Court rejects plea challenging election of CM Siddaramaiah from Varuna constituency

Bengaluru: The high court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah from Varuna assembly constituency in Mysuru in the 2023 state assembly elections. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said the petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of ‘want of cause of action’ as well as being barred by law.

The petitioner KM Shankara claims to be a voter from Varuna and to have served as a gram panchayat member from Someshwarapura, Koodanahalli. He filed the petition seeking a direction to declare Siddaramaiah’s victory to be void under several provisions of section 100 of the Representation of People (RP) Act. The petitioner cited Gruha Jyothi, Gruha Lakshmi, Anna Bhagya, Yuva Nidhi and Shakthi schemes, to argue that these five guarantees are corrupt practices amounting to bribery and undue influence under section 123 (2) of the RP Act.

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of Siddaramaiah that the petitioner had failed to produce material facts or instances to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practices. It was stated that the Congress party had announced welfare schemes and measures as part of their progressive manifesto and the promises made in the manifesto would not amount to a corrupt practice committed by an individual candidate.

“The petition does not conform to Section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of People's  Act as full particulars and details of corrupt practices are not enumerated. The Election Manifestos are not legally binding documents, but serve as moral commitments,” it was further argued. The Apex Court decision in the S Subramaniam Balaji v/s State of Tamil Nadu and Others case was cited wherein the top court held that promises outlined in a manifesto cannot constitute corrupt practice. 

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that it is settled position of law that an Election Petition which does not comply with the provision of Section 81 of the RP Act would entail dismissal as laid down in Section 86 of the RP Act. Section 86(1) of the RP Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an Election Petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 of the RP Act, the court said.

“Such provision being interpreted strictly, it is held that material facts cannot be introduced by way of amendment beyond the period prescribed under Section 81 of the Act. On such ground, the applicability of Civil Procedure Code cannot be read into the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, which is a special legislation,” Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said.

The court added, “In the present case, the plaint is liable to be rejected both on the ground of "want of cause of action" as well as being barred by law. A perusal of the Election Petition would indicate that the same is drafted with no attention to detail with vague pleadings, factual errors and replication of pleadings from other Election Petitions.”