AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Soumen Sen, C.J.
In this Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner contends that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu1, directing the Election Commission to frame guidelines for election manifestos in consultation with all the recognized political parties, have not been fully implemented by the Election Commission.
The statement filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, i.e., the Election Commission of India, states that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the framing of guidelines to be adhered to by the political parties and candidates while releasing election manifestos for any election to the Parliament or State Legislatures have been framed after due consultation with political parties and in this regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India has referred to paragraph No.17 of the affidavit, which sets out the guidelines. For the sake of clarity, the said guidelines read as follows :
“(i)The election manifesto shall not contain anything repugnant to the ideals and principles enshrined in the Constitution and further that it shall be consistent with the letter and spirit of other provisions of Model Code of Conduct.
(ii)The Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution enjoin upon the State to frame various welfare measures for the citizens and therefore there can be no objection to the promise of such welfare measures in election manifestos. However, political parties should avoid making those promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise.
(iii)In the interest of transparency, level playing fields and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos also reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it. Trust of voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled.”
In the statement, it has been clearly stated that the aforesaid guidelines have been incorporated as Part VIII of the Model Code of Conduct and it has been clarified that the same would be applicable from the date a political party issues its manifesto irrespective of whether such date is before or after the date of announcement of the election schedule by the Election Commission of India. A true copy of the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates issued by the Election Commission of India has also been disclosed in Annexure-R3(a). It would thus be clear from the aforesaid guidelines that the political parties and candidates are henceforth required to explain their rationale for the promises made in their election manifestos as well as the possible ways and means of financing such promises.
Besides the aforesaid statement dated 21.06.2025 filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, it has also disclosed a letter No.437/6/INST/ECI/FUNCT/MCC/2024 (Election Manifesto) dated 02.01.2024, whereby the Election Commission of India has forwarded consolidated instructions, in supersession of all its earlier instructions, in respect of election manifestos. It is stated in the statement that the Election Commission of India has not received any representation alleged to have been sent or forwarded to it on 08.03.2024.
We have considered the representation made in Ext.P9 and it appears that the essence thereof is to incorporate certain aspects which fall within the domain of the Legislature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S.Subramaniam Balaji’s case (supra), has already recorded the lack of such legislation in paragraph No.88 of the said judgment.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India has drawn our attention to paragraph Nos.25 & 26 of the statement filed, wherefrom it appears that, while considering the writ petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 26.08.2022 in W.P(C)No.43 of 2022, framed certain preliminary issues for further deliberation and directed that the matter be listed before a three-Judge Bench after obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Reference was also made to an order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 12.02.2025 in W.P(C)No.1704 of 2025, wherefrom it appears that liberty was given to the Petitioner therein to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter.
Be that as it may, we are of the view that, on the basis of the documents placed on record, it cannot be said that the Election Commission has not complied with the guidelines framed in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On such consideration, we are not inclined to pass any direction in this proceeding.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification of the directions issued in S.Subramaniam Balaji’s case (supra), in view of the observation contained in the last sentence of paragraph No.87 i.e., “Nevertheless, an exception can be made in this regard as the purpose of the election manifesto is directly associated with the election process.”, in the context of the election manifesto that may be released before the announcement of the election date. We are of the view that no permissions or liberties are required in the said respect and it is for the Petitioner to take a call regarding the same.
The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Footnotes
- 1.2013 (9) SCC 659