LexASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2022) AUGUST 26, 2022 [N. V. RAMANA, CJI, HIMA KOHLI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Election laws: Freebies – Matter pertaining to promises made by political parties for the distribution of free goods-‘freebies’ as a part of their election manifesto or during election speeches – In view of the complexity of the issues involved, and the prayer for reconsideration of two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in *S. Subramaniam Balaji, matter referred to three-Judge Bench – Reference to larger Bench. *S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659 : [2013] 13 SCR 668 – To be reconsidered. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625 : [1981] 1 SCR 206 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 13 SCR 668 to be reconsidered Para 12, 14 [1981] 1 SCR 206 referred to Para 13 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2022. Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India With Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 87, 474, 496, 383 and 121 of 2022. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. and Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. (Amicus Curiae) Vikas Singh, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Arvind Datar, Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advs., Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Chandra Shekhar, Kapish Seth, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Ashwini Upadhyay, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Ms. Kavya Jhawer, Pranav Sachdeva, Kamal [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1138 1138 A B C D E F G H 1139 Kishore, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Ms. Nandita Bansal, Barun Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Mudit Kaul, Abhishek, Advs. for the Petitioner. Tushar Mehta, SG, K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Maninder Singh, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, P. Wilson, Sr. Advs., Shailesh Madiyal, Kanu Agrawal, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Mayank Pandey, Anirudha Bhatt, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Nakul Chengappa K. K., Chitransh Sharma, Abhinav Raghav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Ms. Akhila Palem, Abhishek Sharma, Sahil Raveen, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Barura, Varun Thakur, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Brajesh Pandey, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Shadan Farasat, Bharat Gupta, Shourya Dasgupta, Aman Naqvi, Dhruv Bhatnagar, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Nitesh, R. Nedumaran, Apoorv Malhotra, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Dr. Sandeep Singh, Ms. Priya Gaur, Vinay Pal, Sanchit Garga, Amit Kapur, Aksat Jain, Maibam N. Shyam Singh, Pratyush Singh, Aditya Dubey, Prashant Bhushan, Prabodh Kumar, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advs. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. The questions raised in the present set of petitions relates to promises made by political parties for the distribution of free goods (‘freebies’) as a part of their election manifesto or during election speeches. The main contention of the petitioners is that such pre-election promises, which have a largescale impact on the economy of the State, cannot be permitted. The petitioners submit that such pre-election promises are being made by political parties without any assessment of the financial implications on the State is nothing but an attempt to attract the vote bank. This goes against the spirit of responsible electioneering and is adversely affecting free and fair elections. This severely affects the level playing field between the different political parties. The money that is being paid by the taxpayers is ultimately being misused for political parties/candidates to gain or retain power. 2. In this batch of petitions there are two sets of writ petitions. The first batch relates to pre-elections freebies which may influence voters at the time of elections. The second set of petitions challenge the grant of benefits by Governments which do not relate to any welfare ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A B C D E F G H 1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. measure or developmental activity but rather are a ploy to capture vote banks. 3. The learned Solicitor General of India has responded to the above submissions by stating that the Union has a very limited role when it comes to this issue and suggested that this Court may constitute a Commission to consider the same. 4. The Election Commission of India has consistently taken the stand before this Court that it has limited scope to interfere in such promises which are being made by political parties/candidates. 5. Additionally, some pol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.