A three-judge bench will hear “in entirety” the pleas against the practice of political parties promising pre-election freebies, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
A bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi said it is sitting in a combination of two and according to a reference order on the matter, it should go before a bench of three judges for disposal.
“Once there is a reference order that the matter has to be heard by a three-judge bench then it will be heard by a three-judge bench,” the CJI said, adding the judicial records be placed before the Chief Justice in his administrative capacity for listing these cases before an appropriate bench.
Considering the nature of the controversy and submissions made by the parties in the earlier hearings, the matter would be listed as early as possible, the bench said.
Ashwini Upadhayay, one of the PIL petitioners, said the matter has to be heard by a larger bench with an aim to examine the earlier judgment in the Subramaniam Balaji case.
He also suggested that a committee of experts be set up to control irrational freebies in larger public interest and to ensure free and fair election and suggested that the Chief Election Commissioner be made head of the panel.
Upadhyay also said the RBI Governor, Chairman of the Finance Commission, Vice Chairperson of NITI Aayog, Controller and Auditor General, Secretary of GST Council and presidents of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Institute of Cost Accountants of India be made members of the panel.
The bench, however, said it would not be able to consider any such request and they will be taken note of by the appropriate bench. Earlier, a bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, had directed on August 26 that the pleas be listed before a three-judge bench as they needed an “extensive” hearing.
The bench had said the 2013 judgment delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the matter of S Subramaniam Balaji vs the Government of Tamil Nadu and others required reconsideration.
In its 2013 judgment, the apex court had noted that after examining and considering the parameters laid in section 123 of the Representation of People Act (RPA), it arrived at a conclusion that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice.