Read Time: 06 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that "there is no penal provision under any statute to bring the political parties within the clutches of enforcement authorities, in case, they fail to fulfil their promises as made in the election manifesto."

The bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak observed thus while dismissing a writ petition claiming that a police investigation should be initiated against Mr. Amit Shah as he in the capacity of Bhartiya Janta Party President in the year 2014, had committed crimes of fraud, cheating, deceiving, and allurement, etc. for the party has failed to fulfill the promises made in the Election Manifesto-2014.

It was contended that the party made the promises to woo the voters and non-fulfillment of those promises is a cognizable offence.

However, rejecting this claim, Court added, "The election manifesto promulgated by any political party is a statement of their policy, view, promises and vow during the election, which is not the binding force and the same cannot be implemented through the courts of law."

Court also clarified that "a political party as a whole can't be made liable under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for adopting corrupt practices of the election".

One Khurshidurehman S. Rehman, through this writ petition, had moved the high court challenging the order passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court rejecting his application filed under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code.

Rehman had moved the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC alleging that non-fulfillment of promises as made in the Election Manifesto-2014 makes out a clear-cut criminal case against Shah, who is liable to be summoned and tried under different sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Examining Rehman's claim, Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Subramaniam Balaji Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (2013), wherein it was held that promises made in the manifesto cannot be treated to be corrupt practice as is denoted under Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act.

Court added that even in a provision as embodied under Section 123 of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 only a candidate or his/her agents has been brought under law for adopting corrupt practices of election but the aforesaid provision is not made applicable on any political party as a whole.

Court also noted that Rehman's counsel had failed to substantiate his submissions in assailing the orders impugned, as to how cognizable offence is made out in the present matter for the purposes of issuing a direction for investigation as enunciated under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Therefore, Court dismissed the writ petition for being devoid of merits and misconceived.

Case Title: Khurshidurehman S. Rehman v. State Of U P And Another