Election manifesto can't be implemented by courts: Allahabad High Court junks plea against BJP alleging false promises

The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that there is no law that penalises the non-fulfilment of poll promises made by political parties in their election manifesto [Khurshidurehman S Rehman v. State Of U P And Another]..While dismissing a plea seeking action against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly failing to live up to promises made in its 2014 election manifesto, Justice Dinesh Pathak held,"It is, thus, clear that 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. Even 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 petitioner had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the orders passed by the trial and revisional courts rejecting an application filed under Section 156 (3) [ of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In his complaint, the petitioner had sought registration of cognisable offences including cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust, fraud and false allurement, against the BJP. It was alleged that the BJP had wooed voters with several promises but failed to fulfil the same after the 2014 Lok Sabha elections..Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-fulfilment of promises made in the 2014 manifesto makes out a clear-cut criminal case and the respondent is liable to be summoned and tried under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the State and respondent submitted that no cognisable offence was made out, and any punishment for the allegations do not come under any law and so cannot be enforced as sought. .The High Court at the outset observed,"Invoking the power of Magistrate under Section 156 (3) in a casual manner, without producing sufficient details and material for commission of cognizable offence, is not justifiable in the eye of law."While noting that voters are allured to cast votes in favour of the party by magical promises, the judge observed that no specific penal provision was pointed out, nor was it specified how a cognisable offence was made out. "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 a corrupt practices of election but the aforesaid provision is not made applicable on any political party as a whole," the order emphasised. .It went on to discuss the Supreme Court judgment in S Subramaniam Balaji v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, wherein it was held that promises made in the manifesto cannot be treated to be a corrupt practice as is denoted under Section 123 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. No penal provision has been provided considering the non-fulfilment of the promises as made in the election manifesto as a crime, the apex court had held..The High Court clarified that the courts below had not decided the matter in a cursory manner without applying their judicial mind."Non-occurrence of any cognizable offence is also one of the paramount condition which averted the courts below from issuing a direction for investigation in exercise of powers under Sections 156 (3) CrPC...do not find any substance in the present writ petition."The plea was thus disposed of after observing that there is no prima facie disclosure of a a cognisable offence having been committed..Advocate Jai Prakash Prasad represented the petitioner. Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate Manish Goyal, assisted by Advocate AK Sand, appeared for the State..[Read order]