Political parties are free to enter into post-poll alliances, said the Supreme Court on Monday as it dismissed a PIl that questioned how parties with conflicting manifestos could be allowed to forge alliances thereby betraying public trust.
The question raised by the PIl petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Pandey came at a time when in the run-up to Bihar elections, political parties of various hues have decided to test the waters in the vain hope of aligning with the winning bloc after the battle for votes yields a winner.
Finding no legal ground to deal with the problem raised in the petition, the bench of Chief Justice Hl Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy said, “If two or more parties decide to come together, can the court say that since you say so many things against each other you should never be friends.”
Pandey argued that voters support or oppose a party looking into their manifestos. He referred to Election Commission guidelines issued on January 2014 asking political parties to avoid making promises likely to vitiate purity of election process or exert undue influence on voters. In a judgement delivered by Supreme Court in July 2013 (Subramanium Balaji vs Tamil Nadu), the court asked the Election Commission to examine content of manifestos where freebies are announced by political parties to lure voters, Pandey added.
Drawing remote parallels with the recent Bihar polls, the court said, “If three political parties come together can we say no to them and order fresh electionsIJ” Moreover, passing such directions will result in a huge drain to the exchequer, the bench noted.
The petitioner even referred to certain manifestos where false promises are made that are illegal or in breach of law, for instance, the proposal to regularize unauthorised constructions. The bench asked the petitioner, “Is the promise made in manifesto by a political party a promise made in law that could be enforced by any courtIJ” As a matter of fact, a false promise does not constitute a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People’s Act.