LexS. SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013) 13 S.C.R. 668 A S. SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI -r v. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2013) B JULY 5, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 123 - J.t Elections - Promises made by political parties in their election c manifesto - If amounts to 'corrupt practices' as per s.123 - ..._ Held: Promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into s. 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice - Promises in the election manifesto do not constitute as a corrupt practice under the prevailing law - However, reality cannot be ruled D out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, --f influences all people - It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree - Considering that there is no enactment that directly governs the contents of the election manifesto, the Election Commission is directed to frame E guidelines for the same in consultation with all the recognized political parties - Generally political parties release their election manifesto before the announcement of election date, in that scenario, strictly speaking, the Election Commission will not have the authority to regulate any act done before F announcement of the date - Nevertheless, an exception can be made in this regard as the purpose of election manifesto is directly associated with the election process - Election Commission directed to take up this task as early as possible owing to its utmost importance - Also, there is need for a G separate legislation to be passed by the legislature in this ,._~ regard for governing the political parties - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 324. Policy - Government policy - State Largesse - Scheme • framed by State for free distribution of Colour Television Sets H 668 S. SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI v GOVERNMENT OF 669 TAMIL NADU (CCTVs) to eligible families in the State - Scheme A challenged in writ petition - Whether the scheme was within the ambit of public purpose and if yes, was it violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Held: The mandate of the Constitution provides various checks and balances before a Scheme can be implemented - Therefore, as long as a scheme comes 8 within the realm of public purpose and monies withdrawn for implementation of the scheme by passing suitable ~- Appropriation Bill, the Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in such scheme - Judicial interference is permissible only when action of the government is unconstitutional or contrary c to a statutory provision and not when such action is not wise or that the extent of expenditure is not for the good of the State - The scheme in question fell within the realm of fulfilling the Directive Principles of State Policy thereby falling within the scope of public purpose and was a/so in consonance with D j. Art. 14 of the Constitution - Scope for application of the principle laid down in Vishaka case did not arise as there was no legislative vacuum in the case on hand -Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.123. E Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 148 - Comptroller and Auditor General of India (GAG) - Role and duties of - Held: ,.. CA G is a constitutional functionary appointed ul Art. 148 of the Constitution - His main role is to audit the income and expenditure of the Governments, Government bodies and F State-run corporations - GAG examines the propriety, legality and validity of all expenses incurred by the Government - Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers etc.) Act, 1971. Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 148 - Comptroller and G Auditor General of India (GAG) - Whether GAG has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed - Held: The office of GAG exercises effective control over the government accounts and expenditure incurred on schemes •. H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. A only after implementation of the same - Duty of the CAG arises only after the expenditure is incurred. Respondent No.8-Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), while releasing the election manifesto for the 2006 Assembly Elections, announced a Scheme of free 8 distribution of Colour Television Sets (CTVs) to each and every household which did not possess the same, if the said party/its alliance were elected to power. This Scheme was challenged by the appellant, by filing writ petition before the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.