Karnataka High Court rejects plea challenging Siddaramaiah’s election from Varuna constituency

High Court of Karnataka rejects petition challenging legality of CM Siddaramaiah's election, citing manifesto promises not corrupt practices.

The High Court of Karnataka has rejected a petition questioning the legality of the election of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to the Legislative Assembly from the Varuna constituency in the election held in April 2023.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order on Tuesday while rejecting the petition filed by K.M. Shankara, a voter from the constituency in Mysuru district.

While citing the judgments of the apex court, the High Court refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that promises made in the Congress party’s election manifesto, particularly the five guarantee schemes, amount to corrupt practices under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Mr. Justice Yadav also noted that already two petitions, in which return of two other MLAs of the Congress in the 2023 election was challenged, were dismissed by the High Court by declaring that “promises in the election manifesto by itself do not amount to corrupt practices, by placing reliance on the judgments of the apex court”.

The court also said that owning up of the political party’s manifesto or the handouts does not take away the manifesto and the handout being admittedly an appeal by the party to the vote for its candidates, and such promises cannot be imputed to the candidates. On affixing of the signature of Mr. Siddaramaiah on the handout of the guarantee schemes, the court said Mr. Siddaramaiah had affixed his signature in his capacity as the Congress legislature party leader and not more.

Also, Mr. Justice Yadav pointed out that a perusal of the election petition would indicate that the same was drafted with “no attention to detail with vague pleadings, factual errors, and replication of pleadings from other elections petitions”, which were filed against other MLAs challenging their elections on the ground that promise of the guarantee schemes amounts to corrupt practice.

“It must be noticed that an election petition has serious repercussions and by law it is mandated that an election petition requires careful drafting and the present petition does not evidence attention to necessary details and is drafted in a very casual manner,” the court said.