Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party moves Supreme Court alleging cash inducements in Bihar polls

Jan Suraaj Party founded by political strategist Prashant Kishor has approached the Supreme Court challenging what it calls the misuse of a state welfare scheme to influence voters ahead of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections [Jan Suraaj Party vs The Election Commission of India].

Kishor's party had contested 242 of the 243 Assembly seats in the 2025 polls but failed to secure a single seat.

At the heart of the party's challenge before the Supreme Court is a scheme launched by the Nitish-led Bihar government just before the elections - the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana. Under the scheme, the State decided to transfer ₹10,000 directly to one woman in every family to help her start self-employment, with a further promise of ₹2 lakh after assessment.

According to the plea, eligibility for the scheme was linked to membership of JEEVIKA, a network of women’s self-help groups. The State announced that women not already part of JEEVIKA could enrol to receive the benefit.

The Jan Suraaj party has alleged that while around one crore women were already associated with JEEVIKA before the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) came into force, newspaper reports later showed that 1.56 crore women eventually received payments.

This, it claims, indicates that new beneficiaries were added and paid after the election schedule was announced and while the MCC was in operation.

The petition argues that releasing cash benefits during this period amounted to “corrupt practices” meant to unduly influence voters in favour of the ruling government.

The plea claims that this deprived other political parties of a level playing field and struck at the core requirement of free and fair elections.

The plea has also flagged the role of the Election Commission of India. It has alleged that women, who were beneficiaries of the scheme, were deployed at polling booths on voting days in both phases of polling, even though many of them had already received the cash benefit.

According to Jan Suraaj, this deployment had no rational basis and further compromised the neutrality expected during elections.

Another key challenge in the petition relates to how the scheme was funded. The party claims that the programme was approved by a cabinet decision without legislative sanction and that money was withdrawn from the State’s Contingency Fund, allegedly in violation of Article 267 of the Constitution. It has been alleged that the scheme was not part of the regular budgetary process.

To bolster its case, the petition relies on earlier directions issued by the Election Commission of India on the Model Code of Conduct. These guidelines prohibit governments from announcing or expanding welfare schemes, releasing fresh funds, or processing beneficiary-oriented programmes once elections are announced, if such steps are likely to influence voters.

The plea contends that despite these clear instructions, the Bihar government proceeded with cash transfers during the election period and that the Election Commission failed to intervene effectively.

According to the petition, the impact of a direct cash transfer scheme of this nature, rolled out on the eve of elections and continued during the MCC, could not have been ignored.

Thus, the election process was vitiated, violating the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21 and 324, it has been contended.

The party has told the Court that it is relying on newspaper reports as official documents and data are not available on government websites.

The petition also invokes the Supreme Court’s past emphasis on free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Constitution, arguing that welfare measures cannot be used as tools to secure electoral advantage.

The plea is likely to be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant tomorrow (Friday, February 6).

The petition has been filed through advocate Aditya Singh.