Date of the Judgment: July 5, 2013
Citation: 2013 INSC 470
Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Can political parties promising free goods influence voters unfairly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case about the distribution of free items by political parties in Tamil Nadu. The court examined if such promises are a form of bribery and if they misuse public funds. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, with Justice Sathasivam authoring the opinion.
Case Background: Freebies and Election Promises
In 2006, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) promised free color television sets (CTVs) in their election manifesto. They said this was to help women, especially in rural areas, gain knowledge and recreation. After winning the election, the DMK government began distributing CTVs. S. Subramaniam Balaji challenged this, arguing that using public funds for free gifts was unconstitutional.
In 2011, during the next state elections, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) also promised many free items. These included grinders, mixers, electric fans, laptops, gold, cash for weddings, and free cattle. Balaji again challenged these promises, claiming they were illegal and a misuse of public funds. He argued that these promises were a form of bribery to influence voters.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | DMK promises free CTVs in its election manifesto. |
| April 24, 2006 | S. Subramaniam Balaji complains to the Election Commission of India about the DMK’s promise of free CTVs. |
| May 2006 | DMK and its allies win the State Assembly Elections. |
| September 15-17, 2006 | First phase of free CTV distribution by the DMK government. |
| 2006 & 2007 | Balaji files writ petitions in the Madras High Court against the free CTV scheme. |
| June 25, 2007 | Madras High Court dismisses Balaji’s petitions. |
| February 2011 | AIADMK announces its manifesto with promises of various free gifts. |
| March 29, 2011 | Balaji complains to the Election Commission of India about the AIADMK’s promises. |
| May 2011 | AIADMK and its allies win the State Assembly Elections. |
| June 6, 2011 | Balaji complains to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India against the AIADMK’s freebie schemes. |
| 2011 | Balaji files a writ petition in the Madras High Court against the AIADMK’s freebie schemes. |
| September 16, 2011 | Supreme Court transfers Balaji’s writ petition to itself. |
| July 5, 2013 | Supreme Court dismisses Balaji’s appeal and transferred case. |
Course of Proceedings
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed Balaji’s initial petitions against the free CTV scheme. The High Court held that distributing free CTVs was not a waste of public funds. Balaji then appealed to the Supreme Court. Later, when AIADMK also started similar schemes, Balaji filed another petition in the Madras High Court. This case was transferred to the Supreme Court and tagged with the earlier appeal.
Legal Framework: Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
The case revolved around several key legal points. Article 282 of the Constitution of India allows the Union or a State to make grants for any public purpose. Article 266(3) states that money from the Consolidated Fund can only be used as per the law. Article 162 limits the executive power of the State to matters the Legislature can make laws on. The court also considered Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which defines “corrupt practices” in elections, including bribery.
Specifically, Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines bribery as any gift, offer, or promise by a candidate to induce a person to vote in a particular manner. The court also considered Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and Articles 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47, which outline the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The court also referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers etc.) Act, 1971, which outlines the duties of the CAG to audit government expenditures.
Arguments Presented Before the Court
Appellant’s Arguments (S. Subramaniam Balaji):
- ✓ Free gifts promised in election manifestos are a form of bribery under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- ✓ Using public funds for free gifts is not a “public purpose” under Article 282 of the Constitution.
- ✓ Such distributions violate Article 14 as there is no reasonable classification of beneficiaries.
- ✓ The Comptroller and Auditor General of India should examine such expenditures before they are made.
- ✓ Safeguards are needed to ensure that distributions are for public purposes and not misused.
- ✓ The State should not create private assets using public funds, except for essential needs like food, clothing, shelter, health, or education.
- ✓ The state should not act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”.
Respondent’s Arguments (Government of Tamil Nadu):
- ✓ Political parties are not “State” and cannot be challenged in writ petitions.
- ✓ Promises in election manifestos are not “corrupt practices” under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- ✓ The schemes are for public purposes, aiming to improve the lives of the poor.
- ✓ Article 14 does not apply to welfare schemes where benefits are given to all without distinction.
- ✓ The State is obligated to promote the welfare of people below the poverty line, as mandated by the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- ✓ The schemes are implemented after proper approval from the legislature.
- ✓ The concept of livelihood is no longer confined to basic survival but includes education, recreation, etc.
Union of India, CAG and Election Commission:
- ✓ The Union of India supported the State’s stand.
- ✓ The CAG stated they have no role at this stage.
- ✓ The Election Commission said they are ready to implement any guidelines framed by the Court.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Whether promises in election manifestos amount to corrupt practices |
|
|
| Whether schemes are within the ambit of public purpose and Article 14 |
|
|
| Whether the Court has inherent power to issue guidelines |
|
|
| Whether the CAG has a duty to examine expenditures before deployment |
|
|
| Whether writ jurisdiction lies against a political party |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether promises made by political parties in election manifestos amount to “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
- Whether the schemes under challenge are within the ambit of public purpose, and if so, whether they violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
- Whether the Court has inherent power to issue guidelines by applying the Vishaka principle?
- Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed?
- Whether writ jurisdiction will lie against a political party?
Treatment of the Issues by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Promises in election manifestos as “corrupt practices” | The Court held that promises in election manifestos do not constitute a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The law only applies to individual candidates or their agents, not to political parties. |
| Schemes within “public purpose” and Article 14 | The Court ruled that the schemes are within the scope of “public purpose,” as they aim to fulfill Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 14 does not apply to welfare schemes where benefits are given to all without distinction. |
| Court’s power to issue guidelines using Vishaka principle | The Court stated that there is no legislative vacuum as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, covers corrupt practices. Therefore, the Vishaka principle does not apply. |
| CAG’s duty to examine expenditures before deployment | The Court clarified that the CAG’s duty to examine expenditures arises only after the expenditure has been incurred. |
| Writ jurisdiction against a political party | The Court left this issue open, as the petition was dismissed on other grounds. |
Authorities Relied Upon
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Roberts vs. Hopwood & Ors. 1925 AC 578 | House of Lords | The court referred to this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| Bromley London Borough Council, London vs. Greater Council & Anr. 1982 (2) WLR 62 | House of Lords | The court referred to this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| R vs. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1995) 1 All ER 611 | Queen’s Bench Division | The court referred to this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| Coates vs. Campbell and Others, 37 Minn. 498 | US Court | The court referred to this case to highlight that where the purposes of expenditure are partly public and partly private, the entire act must fail. |
| Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr. 2003 (5) SCC 437 | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to support the argument that Article 14 applies to government policy and such policy would be unconstitutional if it fails the test of reasonableness. |
| K.T. Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala AIR 1961 SC 552 | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to highlight that a statute can offend Article 14 if it groups together persons who are dissimilar. |
| Richardson-Garnder vs. Ekykn, (1869) 19 LT 613 | English Court | The court referred to this case to highlight that the making of charitable gifts on an extensive scale would lead to an inference that this was made to influence voters. |
| Kingston Cotton Mills Co. Re [1896] 2 Ch 279 | Chancery Division | The court referred to this case to highlight that an auditor is a “watchdog”. |
| Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 538 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that the court can strike down a law or scheme only on the basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on the basis of its viability. |
| Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 733 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that a political party cannot be considered as a State or any agency or instrumentality of the State. |
| Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that if on a given topic there is no law enacted by a competent legislature, then the court has the power to issue directions. |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 454 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that if on a given topic there is no law enacted by a competent legislature, then the court has the power to issue directions. |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight the difficulties in implementing guidelines framed by the Court. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 399 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight the difficulties in implementing guidelines framed by the Court. |
| M.J. Jacob vs. A. Narayanan and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 318 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that an allegation of “corrupt practice” must be strictly proved as a criminal charge. |
| Baldev Singh Mann vs. Surjit Singh Dhiman, (2009) 1 SCC 633 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that the charge of a corrupt practice in an election petition should be proved almost like a criminal charge. |
| Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 191 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight the meaning of “socialism” in the Preamble of the Constitution. |
| Keshavanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 1461 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. |
| Deepak Theatre, Dhuri vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 684 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that cinemas have become tools to promote welfare of the people. |
| Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that the court is not the appellate authority and cannot interfere with policy decisions of the government unless they are clearly in violation of some statutory or Constitutional provision. |
| Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 594 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that fair and free elections are essential requisites to maintain the purity of election and to sustain the faith of the people in election itself in a democratic set up. |
| Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse vs. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh (1996) 1 SCC 206 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that the contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a corrupt practice. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- ✓ Article 14, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 73, 114, 118, 148, 162, 208, 266, 267, 282, 324 of the Constitution of India.
- ✓ Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- ✓ The Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers etc.) Act, 1971
Judgment: Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the transferred case. The court held that promises made in election manifestos do not constitute a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It also ruled that the schemes for distributing free goods were within the ambit of “public purpose” and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also clarified that it does not have the power to issue guidelines on the content of election manifestos, as this is a legislative matter.
| Party Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Promises in manifestos are corrupt practices | Rejected. The Court held that Section 123 of the RP Act applies to individual candidates, not political parties. |
| Schemes are not for public purpose | Rejected. The Court held that the schemes are for public purpose as they aim to fulfill Directive Principles of State Policy. |
| Schemes violate Article 14 | Rejected. The Court held that Article 14 does not apply to welfare schemes where benefits are given to all without distinction. |
| Court should issue guidelines | Rejected. The Court held that it cannot legislate on the content of election manifestos. |
| CAG should examine expenditures before deployment | Rejected. The Court held that the CAG’s duty arises after the expenditure is incurred. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Roberts vs. Hopwood & Ors. 1925 AC 578 | The court used this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| Bromley London Borough Council, London vs. Greater Council & Anr. 1982 (2) WLR 62 | The court used this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| R vs. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1995) 1 All ER 611 | The court used this case to emphasize that the State cannot act in furtherance of “eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy”. |
| Coates vs. Campbell and Others, 37 Minn. 498 | The court used this case to highlight that where the purposes of expenditure are partly public and partly private, the entire act must fail. |
| Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr. 2003 (5) SCC 437 | The court cited this case to support the argument that Article 14 applies to government policy and such policy would be unconstitutional if it fails the test of reasonableness. |
| K.T. Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala AIR 1961 SC 552 | The court cited this case to highlight that a statute can offend Article 14 if it groups together persons who are dissimilar. |
| Richardson-Garnder vs. Ekykn, (1869) 19 LT 613 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the making of charitable gifts on an extensive scale would lead to an inference that this was made to influence voters. |
| Kingston Cotton Mills Co. Re [1896] 2 Ch 279 | The court referred to this case to highlight that an auditor is a “watchdog”. |
| Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 538 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the court can strike down a law or scheme only on the basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on the basis of its viability. |
| Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 733 | The court referred to this case to highlight that a political party cannot be considered as a State or any agency or instrumentality of the State. |
| Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241 | The court referred to this case to highlight that if on a given topic there is no law enacted by a competent legislature, then the court has the power to issue directions. |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 454 | The court referred to this case to highlight that if on a given topic there is no law enacted by a competent legislature, then the court has the power to issue directions. |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294 | The court referred to this case to highlight the difficulties in implementing guidelines framed by the Court. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 399 | The court referred to this case to highlight the difficulties in implementing guidelines framed by the Court. |
| M.J. Jacob vs. A. Narayanan and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 318 | The court referred to this case to highlight that an allegation of “corrupt practice” must be strictly proved as a criminal charge. |
| Baldev Singh Mann vs. Surjit Singh Dhiman, (2009) 1 SCC 633 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the charge of a corrupt practice in an election petition should be proved almost like a criminal charge. |
| Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 191 | The court referred to this case to highlight the meaning of “socialism” in the Preamble of the Constitution. |
| Keshavanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 1461 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. |
| Deepak Theatre, Dhuri vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 684 | The court referred to this case to highlight that cinemas have become tools to promote welfare of the people. |
| Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the court is not the appellate authority and cannot interfere with policy decisions of the government unless they are clearly in violation of some statutory or Constitutional provision. |
| Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 594 | The court referred to this case to highlight that fair and free elections are essential requisites to maintain the purity of election and to sustain the faith of the people in election itself in a democratic set up. |
| Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse vs. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh (1996) 1 SCC 206 | The court referred to this case to highlight that the contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a corrupt practice. |
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “Fair and free elections are essential requisites to maintain the purity of election and to sustain the faith of the people in election itself in a democratic set up.”
- “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 is the promise of a future Government. It is not a promise of an individual candidate.”
- “The concept of livelihood is no longer confined to a bare physical survival in terms of food, clothing and shelter, but also now must necessarily include some provision for medicine, transport, education, recreation etc.”
The Court also clarified that while it cannot direct the legislature to enact a specific law, it can direct the Election Commission to frame guidelines for election manifestos to ensure a level playing field.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized the importance of free and fair elections, but also acknowledged the need for the government to implement welfare schemes. The court was wary of interfering with policy decisions of the government unlessthey were clearly unconstitutional or in violation of the law. The court also recognized the practical difficulties of implementing guidelines on election manifestos.
Fact vs. Law: The court primarily focused on the legal aspects of the case. It examined the definition of “corrupt practices” under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the scope of “public purpose” under the Constitution. The court did not delve into the factual aspects of whether the freebies actually influenced voters. The court was clear that it was not its role to decide the viability of the schemes, but only to examine their legality. The court also emphasized that an allegation of “corrupt practice” must be strictly proved as a criminal charge.
Dissenting Opinion
There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, with Justice Sathasivam authoring the opinion.
Impact and Analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case had a significant impact on Indian politics and electoral practices. While the court did not declare the practice of promising freebies as illegal, it did recognize the need for regulation. The court’s direction to the Election Commission to frame guidelines for election manifestos was a step towards ensuring a level playing field in elections. However, the judgment also left some questions unanswered, particularly regarding the scope of “public purpose” and the potential misuse of public funds.
Implications:
- ✓ The judgment clarified that political parties cannot be directly held liable for “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for promises made in their manifestos.
- ✓ It affirmed the state’s power to implement welfare schemes, even if they involve distributing free goods, as long as they are for a “public purpose.”
- ✓ The court’s direction to the Election Commission to frame guidelines for election manifestos was a significant step towards regulating the practice of promising freebies.
- ✓ The judgment highlighted the need for a balance between welfare schemes and fiscal responsibility.
- ✓ It has led to a debate on what constitutes a “genuine welfare measure” and what is a “populist measure” designed to influence voters.
Criticisms:
- ✓ Some critics argue that the judgment did not go far enough in curbing the practice of promising freebies, which they see as a form of bribery.
- ✓ Others argue that the court should have defined “public purpose” more clearly to prevent the misuse of public funds.
- ✓ The judgment has been criticized for not addressing the issue of whether the state should be allowed to create private assets using public funds.
Long-Term Effects:
- ✓ The judgment has led to a debate on the ethics of promising freebies in election manifestos.
- ✓ It has prompted the Election Commission to issue guidelines for election manifestos, but these guidelines have been criticized for being vague and unenforceable.
- ✓ The issue of freebies in elections continues to be a contentious topic in Indian politics.
- ✓ The judgment has highlighted the need for a more robust legal framework to regulate election manifestos and ensure fair elections.
Flowchart of the Case
Conclusion
The S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu case is a landmark judgment that addressed the issue of freebies in election manifestos. While the Supreme Court did not declare the practice illegal, it did recognize the need for regulation and directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines. The judgment highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, the state’s power to implement welfare schemes, and the need for fiscal responsibility. The issues raised in this case continue to be relevant in Indian politics, and the debate on freebies in elections is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.