(1)

Ļ¯ೇಷ ªಾಜÍ ಪĦΐೆ

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)

NOTIFICATION

No. DPAR 40 CHUTHAA 2025, Bengaluru, Dated: 22^nd January 2026.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

Dated: 8^th December, 2025

17 Agrahayana, 1947 (Saka)

NOTIFICATION

No. 82/KT-HP/7/2024:-In pursuance of Section 106 (a) of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission of India hereby publishes the

judgment/orders of the High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru dated: 30.07.2025 in the Election

Petition No. 7/2024.

¨sÁUÀ – 4

Part – IV

, 22

, 2026(

02

೧೯೪7)

BENGALURU, THURSDAY, 22, JANUARY, 2026( MAGHA, 02, SHAKAVARSHA,, 1947)

. 93

No. 93

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ELECTION PETITION NO.7 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. GAYITHRI SIDDESHWARA

W/O G.M. SIDDESHWARA

AGED 69 YEARS

RESIDENT OF NO.1906/25,

BANASHANKARI LAYOUT

SHABANUR, DAVANAGERE-577 005.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DR. PRABHA MALLIKARJUN

W/O S.S. MALLIKARJUN

AGED 48 YEARS,

NO.2636/1, SHIVAPARVATHI

MCC 'b' BLOCK,

DAVANAGERE-577 004.

2. MR. D. HANUMANTHAPPA

S/O DANDEMMA

AGED 49 YEARS

R/AT NO.121/160,

DR. Y NAGAPPA ASHREYA BHAVANA,

HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE-577 601.

1.

3.MR. ESHWARA SHENGA

S/O SIDDAPPA

AGED 38 YEARS,

R/AT OPP: SHYELA TESTING CENTRE

NEAR APMC GATE, R.M.C.

R.M. YARD, DAVANAGERE-577 003.

3

4.MR. ANABERU THIPPESWAMY

S/O LATE ANJINAPPA

AGED 36 YEARS

R/AT NO.684/2, 8^TH MAIN ROAD,

P.G. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-

577 001.

5.MR. M.P. KHALANDAR

S/O ALLABAKSHA

AGED 42 YEARS

R/AT NO.503, 10^TH WARD,

SHILARAGERI, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN,

HARAPANAHALLI TALUK VIJAYANAGARA-

583 131.

6. MR. DODDESH H.S.

S/O H. SHIVAMURTHAPPA

AGED 39 YEARS

R/AT NO.3367/14,

6^TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGARA,

NEAR BAPUJI SCHOOL, MCC

'B' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-

577 004.

7. MR. RUDRESHA K.H. S/O HALAPPA K.G

AGED 43 YEARS

R/AT NO.1675/202,

1^ST FLOOR, RENUKA NILAYA,

NEAR SIDDAGANGA SCHOOL,

SIDDARAMESHWARA BADAVANE,

DAVANAGERE-577 005.

2. 8. MR. VEERESHA S. (LION VEERESH)

S/O SHAMBUNATHA C.R.

AGED 31 YEARS

R/AT NO.269/61, DOLLARS COLONY,

BEHIND RAASTHA HOTEL,

SHAMANURU, DAVANAGERE-577 004.

4

3.

9.MR. K.S. VEERBHADRAPPA,

S/O SANNAYA

AGED 44 YEARS

R/AT MAIN ROAD GUDALU,

GOLLARAHATTI, GUDALU,

DAVANAGERE-577 512.

10.MR. M.G. SRIKANTH

S/O M. GURU RAJRAO

AGED 42 YEARS

R/AT NO.2581/11, 4^TH CROSS,

BEHIND MADIVALA,

MACHIDEVA CHOULTRY,

MCC 'A' BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577 004.

4. 11.MR. M.C. SREENIVAS

5. S/O CHIKKAIAH

AGED 44 YEARS

R/AT 29, BRI COLONY,

AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 079.

12.MR. ABDUL NAZEER AHAMMED

S/O ABDUL RAOUF SAB

AGED 64 YEARS

R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAHALLI

POST, HANNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-

577 224.

13.MR. A K GANESH

S/O ANNESHAPPA A K

AGED 41 YEARS

R/AT NO.2322/43 C

DURGAMBIKA BADAVANE

NITTIVALLI

DAVANAGERE-577 004.

14.SMT. G.M. GAYITRI SIDDESHI

D/O G.M. SIDDESHI

AGED 50 YEARS

R/AT GODE VILLAGE,

PALLAGHATTA POST, JAGALURU TALUK,

DAVANAGERE-577 528.

5

15.MR. T. CHANDRU

S/O LATE M.R. TIPPESWAMY

AGED 41 YEARS

R/AT DEVARA MARIKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST,

CHALLAKERE TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA-577 538.

16.SMT. T. JABEENA AAPA

D/O T. YUSUF SAB

AGED 44 YEARS

R/AT NO.421/1, 6^TH CROSS, VENKA

BOVI COLONY,

DAVANAGERE-577 001.

17.SMT. TASLIM BANU

W/O SUBHAN KHAN

AGED 45 YEARS

R/AT NO.1025, 2^ND CROSS,

3^RD MAIN, K.T.J NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

18. MR. PARAVEEJ H

S/O SIDDAPPA

AGED 41 YEARS

R/O. NO.162, OPP: MUSTAFA MASJID,

SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION, BHATTI,

DAVANAGERE-577 001.

19. MR. PEDDAPPA S

S/O SIDDAPPA

AGED 59 YEARS

R/AT VADDAVARATTI,

HUCCHHAVVANA HALLI, DAVANAGERE-577 528.

20.G.M. BARKATH ALI BASHA

S/O MOHAMMAD ALI

AGED 44 YEARS

R/AT NO.1579, 2^ND CROSS,

NEAR QUBA MASJID, AHMED NAGAR

DAVANAGERE-577 001.

6

21. MR. BARKATH ALI

S/O LATE VAJEER SAB

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

R/AT NO.814, 16^TH CROSS,

SIR MIRZA ISMAIL NAGAR,

BEEDI LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-57001.

22.MR. MAHABUB BASHA

S/O ABDUL KHAILD SAB

AGED 35 YEARS

R/AT NO.985/1, 1^ST MAIN,

1^ST CROSS, AZAD NAGARA,

DAVANAGERE-577 001.

23.MR. MOHAMED HAYATH M

S/O MAQBOOL SAB

AGED 39 YEARS

R/AT 13^TH CROSS, 2^NDMAIN, RAZA-UL-

MUSTHAFA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

24. MR. MANJU MARIKOPPA

S/O CHOUDAPPA

AGED 37 YEARS

R/AT NO.225, 1^ST CROSS,

TUNGABHADRA BADAVANE, HONNALI

TOWN, HONNALI TALUK

DAVANAGERE-577 566.

25.MR. RAVINAIK B

S/O GANGYANAIK

AGED 41 YEARS

R/AT NO.53, BENDIGERI,

SANNATHANDA, BENDIGERI POST HARAPANHALLI

TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA-583 131.

26.MR. RASHEED KHAN

S/O IBRAHISAB

AGED 65 YEARS

R/AT 248/1, 2^ND CROSS,

NARASARAJA PETE, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

7

27.MR. G.B. VINAY KUMAR S/O

BASAVANTA GUDAGATTI AVAR

AGED 39 YEARS

R/AT NO.2451/45,

GROUND FLOOR, 10^TH CROSS, SS

LAYOUT 'A' BLOCK DAVANAGER-

577004.

28. MR. SALEEM S.

S/O SYED NAYAZ

AGED 31 YEARS

R/O 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA

BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE-577 004.

29.MR. SYED ZABIULLA K

S/O SYEDGAFAR SAB

AGED 54 YEARS

R/AT NO.1590/1, S.H. ROAD,

MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK,

DAVANAGERE-577 601.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1;

SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K., ADVOCATE FOR R.7;

RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21,

22, 24, 26 AND 29 ARE SERVED.)

THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 80, 80A,

81 AND 100 READ WITH SECTION 123 OF THE REPRESENTATION

OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ELECTION

OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 18^TH PARLIAMENTARY FROM

NO 13 DAVANAGERE LOKASABHA CONSTITUENCY, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. Respondent No.1 in the election petition is the successful

candidate from the Davanagere Lokasabha constituency, for

8

which the election was held in the year 2024. Respondent

No.1 has contested the Lokasabha election on a ticket from

Indian National Congress Party. The petitioner had

contested the same from Bharatiya Janata Party and has lost

the election by a margin of 26,094 votes.

2. The instant election petition is filed by the petitioner

alleging corrupt practices against respondent No.1 with the

following prayers:

"(i) Set aside the election of the first Respondent to

the

18^th

Parliamentary

from

No

13

DavanagereLokasabha Constituency;

(ii)

Declaring that the Respondent No 1 has

committed corrupt practice under section

123(1)

123(2)

123(4)

123(6)

of

Representation of People Act 1951 and she was

not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat of No

13Davanagere Lokasabha constituency under

section 100 (1) (b) (1) (d) (iv) of the

Representation of People Act.

(iii)

Declare petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat

of Parliament from No 13 Davanagere

Lokasabha Constituency;

(iv)

To award cost of the election petition

(v)

Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court

deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this

case, in the interest of justice."

3. Respondent No.1 has not filed her objections. But, she

has filed the application-I.A.No.2/2024 under Order VII Rule

9

11(a) of CPC read with Section 86(1) of the Representation

of People Act, 1951 ('hereinafter referred to as the Act' for

short) with a prayer to reject the election petition for the

reason of failure to disclose cause of action.

4. While considering an application made for rejection of the

election petition, at the threshold on the ground that it does

not disclose cause of action, the Courts are required to be

stringent. The averments in the election petition will have

to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause

of action or not and only upon reading the election petition

as a whole and concluding that it does not disclose any cause

of action only in that event, an election petition can be

rejected on the threshold and not otherwise. Thus, in the

instant case, the entire averments made in the election

petition are required to be considered to find out whether

the election petition discloses a cause of action or not.

5. The allegations made in the election petition are that

respondent No.1 has committed corrupt practice as defined

under Sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(4) and 123(6) of the

Act. The aforementioned provisions read as under:

"123. Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed

to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:—

10

(1)

“Bribery”, that is to say,—

(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent

or by any other person with the consent of a

candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to

any person whomsoever, with the object,

directly or indirectly of inducing—

(a)

a person to stand or not to stand as, or to

withdraw or not to withdraw from being a

candidate at an election, or

(b)

an elector to vote or refrain from voting at

an election, or as a reward to—

(i)

a person for having so stood or not

stood,

or

for

having

withdrawn

or

not

having

withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii)

an elector for having voted or

refrained from voting;

(B)

the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any

gratification, whether as a motive or a reward—

(a)

by a person for standing or not standing as,

or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from

being, a candidate; or

(b)

by any person whomsoever for himself or

any other person for voting or refraining

from voting, or inducing or attempting to

induce any elector to vote or refrain from

voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not

to withdraw his candidature.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause the term

“gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or

gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of

11

entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but

it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide

incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly

entered in the account of election expenses referred to in

section 78.

(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or

indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of

the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the

consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free

exercise of any electoral right:

Provided that—

(a) without prejudice to the generality of the

provisions of this clause any such person as

is referred to therein who—

(i)

threatens any candidate or any

elector, or any person in whom a

candidate or an elector interested,

with injury of any kind including

social

ostracism

and

ex-

communication or expulsion from

any caste or community; or

(ii)

induces or attempts to induce a

candidate or an elector to believe

that he, or any person in whom he

is interested, will become or will

be rendered an object of divine

displeasure or spiritual censure,

shall be deemed to interfere with the

free exercise of the electoral right of

such candidate or elector within the

meaning of this clause;

12

(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of

public action, or the mere exercise of a

legal right without intent to interfere with

an electoral right, shall not be deemed to

be interference within the meaning of this

clause.

(3) xxx

(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent

or by any other person with the consent of a

candidate or his election agent, of any

statement of fact which is false, and which he

either believes to be false or does not believe

to be true, in relation to the personal character

or conduct of any candidate or in relation to

the

candidature,

or

withdrawal,

of any

candidate, being a statement reasonably

calculated to prejudice the prospects of that

candidate’s election.

(5) xxx

(6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure

in contravention of section 77."

6. Mere allegation that respondent No.1 has committed

corrupt practice under the aforementioned sections is not

sufficient. The election petition is required to disclose a

specific instance of corrupt practice alleged against the

successful candidate, which can be considered as a corrupt

practice under the aforementioned provisions.

13

7. In the instant case, the only corrupt practice alleged in

the entire election petition pertains to distribution of the

'Congress Guarantee Cards' to the electors by

respondent No.1 and the Indian National Congress Party.

This, according to the petitioner, amounts to a corrupt

practice as envisaged under Section 123 of the Act. There

is no other specific allegation made against respondent No.1

or her agents.

8. Thus, the question to be answered while disposing of the

instant application is whether distribution of the 'Congress

Guarantee Cards' by respondent No.1 and her agents

amounts to a corrupt practice as contemplated under

Section 123 of the Act.

9. Along with the election petition, the petitioner has

produced a copy of the 'Congress Guarantee Card' which

promises a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to all the educated

youth of the State along with a job;

Rs.1,00,000/- to a lady belonging to a poor family; waiver

of loan to farmers; a minimum wage of Rs.400/- to daily

wagers and conducting caste census. The 'Congress

Guarantee Card' also provides for filling up of the details of

the voters.

14

10.

It is not in dispute that the 'Congress Guarantee

Card' is not issued by respondent No.1 but by the Indian

National Congress Party and similar guarantee card was

issued by the Indian National Congress Party during the

assembly elections to the Karnataka State Legislature. It is

not issued in respect of an individual candidate but in respect

of all the candidates. It is issued in pursuance of the

manifesto of the Indian National Congress party and it

promises to cater to the needs of certain category of persons

by providing them pecuniary gains through a policy. It is a

policy promise to be brought in by the Indian National

Congress, if it is voted to power. It is not

issued subsequent to filing of the nomination of respondent

No.1, but much earlier to it but after the elections have been

announced. This Court had the opportunity of examining the

legal validity of a similar 'Congress Guarantee Card'issued

by the Indian

National Congress party for the elections conducted to the

Karnataka

State

Legislature

in

the

year

2023

in

E.P.No.15/2023, which has been upheld by the Apex Court

in Civil Appeal No.6263/2024. In paragraphs 11, 13 and 14

of the order in E.P.No.15/2023, it has been held as under:

15

"11. A perusal of the aforementioned Section discloses that,

a practice shall be considered as a corrupt practice

when the same is done by a candidate or his agent or

by any other person with the consent of the candidate

or his agent, and not otherwise. A declaration by a

party as to the policy that they intend to bring about

cannot be considered as a corrupt practice. Whether

the said policy is sound or not and whether it has the

effect of dolling out freebies or appeasing a section of

the society to the detriment of others, is a matter to

be debated and it is for the voters to enlighten

themselves about the viability of the said promises

and vote for a particular party. The same cannot be

considered as a corrupt practice for the purpose of

Section 123 of the RP Act.

13.

In the light of the aforementioned observations made

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the five guarantees of the

Indian National Congress have to be considered as

social welfare policies. Whether they are financially

viable or not is altogether a different aspect. It is for

the other parties to show as to how implementation

of the said schemes amounts to bankruptcy of the

State Treasury and it can only lead to malgovernance

of the State. It is possible that they can be termed as

wrong

policies

under

the

given

facts

and

circumstances of the case, but cannot be termed as

corrupt practices.

14.

As the petitioner in the instant petition has challenged

the election of the respondent to the Karnataka State

Assembly only on the ground that the manifesto of

the Indian National Congress amounts to corrupt

practices and as it has to be held otherwise for the

reasons mentioned above, it has to be concluded that

16

the petition in the instant case does not disclose the

cause of action and the same is liable to be rejected."

11.

In the instant case also, the only ground alleged as

a corrupt practice is the issuance of the 'Congress

Guarantee Card'. The same cannot be considered as a

corrupt practice and it has been considered as a policy

promised by the Indian National Congress Party to the

voters.

12.

For the aforementioned reasons, I.A.No.2/2024

filed by respondent No.1 is hereby allowed and the election

petition filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

SD/-

(M.I.ARUN)

JUDGE

By Order,

(PAWAN DIWAN)

SECRETARY

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

By order and in the name of the

Governor of Karnataka

( MADHU A.C )

Under Secretary to Government

D.P.A.R (Elections)

ಮುದÎಕರು ²ಾಗೂ ಪΐಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ£ಾĩಾĸಗಳ…, ಕ£ಾಟಕ ªಾಜÍಪತÎ, ಸಾĸ ೇಂದÎ ಮುದΞಾಲಯ, ¦ೆಂಗಳˆರು

R.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19

Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297

THAMMAIAH

Digitally signed by THAMMAIAH

DN: c=IN, o=Centre for e-Governance,

2.5.4.20=be54f34f4e31eae50203ca7fab5ceb3794f20a8460a2582ef28294d43b8f8b16,

ou=department of printing stationery and Publication,CID - 7048443, postalCode=560001,

st=Karnataka,

serialNumber=4d9b284dcc53d39f1425f50485de07dd86efa302a3fce3729eddea0c1b5098e0,

cn=THAMMAIAH

Date: 2026.01.22 17:44:34 +05'30'