(1)
Ļ¯ೇಷ ªಾಜÍ ಪĦÎೆ
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)
NOTIFICATION
No. DPAR 03 CHUTHAA 2026, Bengaluru, Dated: 10th February 2026.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
Dated: 8th December, 2025
17 Agrahayana, 1947 ( Saka)
NOTIFICATION
No. 82/KT-LA/200002/2023:- In pursuance of Section 106(b) 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, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi
dated 25.06.2025 in the Election Petition No. 200002/2023.
¨sÁUÀ – 4
Part – IV
, 10
, 2026
, 21
)
BENGALURU, TUESDAY, 10, FEBRUARY, 2026 ( MAGHA , 21, SHAKAVARSHA, 1947)
. 141
No. 141
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ELECTION PETITION NO. 200002 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHWATHRAM
S/O. TUKARAM RATHOD
R/AT: 1-9-103, WARD NO.7,
TUKARAM NAYAK TANDA
STATION, TANDA NEAR
SEVALAL TEMPLE CHITTAPUR,
KALABURAGI, KARNATAKA - 585 211.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT: PRAMILA NESARGI, SR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: G. DEVARAJE GO
SMT: G. PRIYANKA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. PRIYANK KHARGE
S/O. MALLIKARJUN KARGE
R/AT: NO.9999
GUNDUGURTHI VILLAGE TALUK
CHITTAPUR DISTRICT
KALABURAGI - 585 317.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: K.N. PHANINDRA, SR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: ASHWIN CHIKMATH ALONG WITH
SRIYUTHS: S M PARITOSH, ROHAN HOSMATH &
A.H. ABHISHEK GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 81 OF THE REPRESENTATIONOF
PEOPLE ACT, 1951, PRAYING A) TO DECLARE THAT THE DECLARATION OF RESULTS
OF RESPONDENT NO.1, ANNEXURE-C FOR THE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY - 40 -
CHITTAPUR (SC) AS VOID; B) DECLARING THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS COMMITTED
CORRUPT PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 123(1), 123(2), 123(4), 123(6) OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951 AND HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE CHOSEN
TO FILL THE SEAT OF 40 - CHITTAPUR (SC) ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY UNDER
SECTION 100 (1) (B), (1) (D) (IV) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951; C) TO
DECLARE THAT THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS BEEN
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE IMPROPER RECEPTION AND COUNTING VOTES IN
FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS VOID UNDER SECTION 100 (1) (A) (D) (IV) AND
3
DISQUALIFY HIM FOR A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM CONTESTING IN ELECTIONS; D)
TO DECLARE THE VOTES RECEIVED AND COUNTED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1
AS IMPROPER
RECEPTION AND TREAT THEM AS VOID, WASTED AND THROWN AWAY VOTES; E) TO
MAKE AN ORDER REGARDING THE CORRUPT PRACTICE COMMITTED BY PERSONS
OTHER THAN RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE ELECTION HELD FOR 40-CHITTAPUR (SC)
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY AND TO NAME THEM AND TAKE ACTION AS
CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 99; F) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS DEEMED
NECESSARY UNDER SECTION 125(A) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, AND;
G) TO REWARD COSTS AND SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/RELIEFS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2025 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the RP Act’) against the respondent seeking the following reliefs:
a) To declare that the declaration of results of
Respondent No.1, Annexure for the Assembly Constituency-
40-Chittapur(SC) as void;
b) Declaring that Respondent No. I has committed
Corrupt
practice
U/s 123(1),123(2),123(4),
123(6)
of
the
Representation of People Act, 1951 and he was not qualified
to be chosen to fill the seat of 40- Chittapur(SC) Assembly
Constituency U/s 100(1)(b),(1)(d)(iv) of the representation
of People Act, 1951;
c) To declare that the result of the election of the
Respondent No.1 has been materially affected by the
improper reception and counting votes in favor of the
Respondent no.1 as void under Section 100(1)(A)(d)(iv) and
disqualify him for a period of 6 years from contesting in
elections;
d) To declare the votes received and counted in
favor of the Respondent No.1 as improper reception and
treat them as void, wasted and thrown away votes;
4
e) To make an order regarding the corrupt practice
committed by persons other than the Respondent No.1 in
the
election
held
for
40-
Chittapur(SC)
Assembly
constituency and to name them and take action as
contemplated under Section 99;
f) Pass such other orders deemed necessary under
section
125(A)
of
Representation of People Act, 1951; and
g) To reward costs and such other consequential
relief/ reliefs in the circumstances of the case."
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent being a successful candidate in the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 40-Chittapur(SC) constituency, in the general election that was
held on 10.05.2023, indulged in corrupt practice as referred to under Section 123(6) of RP Act by
being part of the election manifesto and proclaiming to give various guarantees, which is nothing but
promising freebies to win over the voters. It is also contended that the caste certificate produced by
the respondent while filing his nomination as he belongs to Scheduled Caste was not in a proper
format. But the certificate of caste produced by him is for the purpose of contesting Gram Panchayat
election for the period 2020-2021, which was made used for the General Assembly election during
2024. Thereby, the respondent has deceived the public by manipulating the facts, which attracts
Section 100(1)(2)(a) of RP Act.
3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has misled the general public
regarding his educational qualification. During 2009 election, he declared that he has studied upto
PUC. In 2018, he stated that he has studied PUC during 1996-98. But in the present election during
2024, he has stated that he has studied PUC in the year 1996. But he has given a statement which was
reported in the Kannada Prabha daily newspaper that he has studied in law school, which also amounts
to corrupt practice as it is an attempt to deceive the general public and to mislead them.
4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent has adopted the tactics of
threatening the opponents by filing false and frivolous complaints. He filed one such complaint with
5
Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi, which was registered in Crime No.113 of 2023. He has also filed
the complaint against another person, which was registered in Crime No.33 of 2023 of
Sadashivanagara Police Station. Registration of these criminal complaints was only with an
intention to cause fear in the mind of the general public and also the opponents, which is in violation
of Section 123(2) of RP Act. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent has not
submitted his returns regarding expenditure incurred for providing the guarantees under manifesto,
which attracts Section 123(6) of RP Act. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking the reliefs as stated
above.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed IA No.1 of 2023 seeking rejection of the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed objections to the said application.
7. Heard Smt Pramila Nesargi, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri K N Phanindra,
learned senior advocate for the respondent on IA No.1 of 2023. Perused the materials on
record.
8. Learned senior advocate for the respondent supporting the application i.e., IA No. 1 of 2023
and opposing the petition submitted that even though the petition runs into more than 40 pages,
it lacks material particulars. The petitioner has not made out any cause of action for seeking
the relief's from this Court. Under such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Since the petition lacks the required particulars and the facts to give rise to a cause of action
to attract any of the provisions of RP Act, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
9. Learned senior advocate submitted that the caste and income certificate submitted by the
respondent, copy of which is produced as per Annexure-A was issued by the Tahsildar of
Chittapur in Form-D as prescribed under law. As per this certificate, the respondent belongs
to Scheduled caste, which was never disputed by the petitioner. It is not the contention of the
petitioner that the respondent does not belong to Scheduled Caste or that he belongs to any
other category and was not qualified to contest from Chittapur constituency which was
reserved for SC. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that, in the certificate, the
Tahsildar has mentioned that the certificate is meant for Gram Panchayat election for the
period 2020-2021. By that itself, the respondent will not be liable for disqualification under
any of the provisions of law.
10. Learned senior advocate referred to Section 33(2) of RP Act to contend that it is the
requirement of law to submit a declaration regarding the caste of the candidate and such
requirement is complied by producing the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Chittapur
and also by declaring it in the nomination paper. Merely because the Tahsildar has mentioned
in the caste certificate that it is meant for Gram Panchayat election for the period 2020-21, it
6
will not in any manner violate the requirement of law under RP Act. Learned senior advocate
submitted that Annexure-J1 is the copy of nomination paper submitted by the respondent,
wherein, he has declared that he is the member of Mahar Caste, which is a scheduled caste. It
is in compliance of Section 33(2) of RP Act and this fact is never denied by the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, this ground is not available for the petitioner to succeed in the
matter.
11. Learned senior advocate also contended that on filing of the nomination by the respondent,
during scrutiny by the Returning Officer, no one have raised any objection about the caste
certificate or disputed his caste. It was never an issue before the Returning Officer. It is also
not the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was ineligible to contest the seat for
any reason whatsoever. Learned senior advocate placed reliance on the handbook for
Returning Officer – Edition-2 August-2022 published by Election Commission of India to
highlight about the grounds for rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officer. Only
if it is the fact that the candidate does not belong to Scheduled Caste and if he files a
nomination paper to contest a seat reserved for such caste, then only the Returning Officer
can reject the nomination paper. Learned senior advocate also referred to the note appended
to clause 6.10.1 (viii) to highlight that in order to prevent non SC/ST persons contesting
election from reserved constituencies, the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of
nominations should satisfy himself that the candidates contesting from reserved constituency
belong to such caste or tribe as the case may be and whenever there is doubt in the mind of
the Returning Officer, he can insist for production of caste certificate issued by the competent
authority. But when the Returning Officer is satisfied by verifying the caste certificate of the
candidate that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and is contesting for the seat reserved for such
category and more so, when no such objections were raised before the Returning Officer, the
petitioner
cannot have any
grievance
for
seeking disqualification of the
respondent on that ground.
12. Learned senior advocate further submitted that no format is prescribed to declare the caste of
the candidate under any of the statutes, particularly under RP Act. Section 33(2) of RP Act
only mandates a declaration to be filed by the candidate. Such declaration in compliance of
the requirement under Section 33(2) of RP Act is filed by the respondent and the copy of
which is produced in the petition by the petitioner himself. Under such circumstances, the
contention of the petitioner regarding defect in the caste certificate produced which is issued
by the competent authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, who is authorized to issue such certificate,
cannot be found fault with.
7
13. Learned senior advocate further submitted that any defect in the nomination papers cannot
lead to rejection of the same. As per Section 36(4) of RP Act, only if the defect in the
nomination paper is of substantial character, then only the Returning Officer can consider
rejection of the same. Moreover, any such objection regarding the defect in the nomination
paper is to be raised by the Returning Officer. A specific procedure is prescribed in the
Returning officer's handbook at clause 6.10.1 Note on item (viii). Admittedly, no such
objection was raised before the Returning Officer either by the petitioner or by any other
person. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner in that regard is to be
rejected out rightly.
14. Learned senior advocate submitted that the dispute regarding the caste of respondent that he
does not belong to 'Mahar' caste or that the same is not notified in the State of Karnataka as
Scheduled Caste was raised for the first time by filing rejoinder after the respondent filed IA
No. 1 of 2023, seeking rejection of the petition. There is absolutely no such contention taken
in the petition.
15. Learned senior advocate further contended that regarding educational qualification of the
respondent, there is absolutely no dispute that he studied only upto PUC. No one has disputed
the said fact as declared in the nomination paper. The contention of the petitioner is with
regard to a paper publication dated 12.06.2023, which is much after declaration of election
results. No such declaration that the respondent is a law graduate was made in the nomination
paper to see disqualification of the respondent. Moreover, it is only the paper cutting produced
by the petitioner, which cannot be relied on to form any opinion regarding misleading of the
general public as required under RP Act.
16. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in People's
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL and another) Vs Union of India and
another1 to contend that the Hon’ble Apex Court has made it very clear that information
relating to educational qualification of contesting candidates does not serve any useful
purpose and by non disclosure of educational qualification of a candidate to enable the general
public to know about the same would not in any manner violate Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that disclosure of information
regarding educational qualification of a candidate is not an essential component of Right to
Information flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Under such
circumstances, even if the respondent has proclaimed that he is a law graduate, it will not
8
entitle the petitioner to seek the relief as claimed in the petition. But when admittedly, no such
declaration is made by the respondent while filing his nomination paper or during elections,
even that grund is not available under Section 123 of RP Act.
17. Learned senior advocate contended that even though it is the contention of the petitioner that
Crime No.113 of 2023 of Chowk Police Station was registered against one Manikanta Rathod,
the same was after the Assembly Election as it was registered on 19.06.2023. Moreover, the
respondent is not the informant, who registered the FIR. Regarding Crime No.33 of 2023 of
Sadashivnagara Police Station, it was registered on 13.02.2023 i.e., before declaration of
Assembly Election in Karnataka. No further material facts are pleaded nor any particulars
were provided to seek disqualification of the respondent on such ground.
18. Learned senior advocate submitted that even though the main contention of the petitioner is
that the respondent had indulged in corrupt practices by publishing the Assembly Election
manifesto-2023, the petitions filed making similar allegations were already rejected by the co-
ordinate Benches of this Court by order dated 26.03.2024 dismissing Election Petition No.14
of 2023 and order dated 25.04.2024 dismissing Election Petition No.15 of 2023. Both the
coordinate Benches discussed at length about the very same election manifesto, which is
highlighted by the petitioner in this petition and came to a consistent conclusion that the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the petition and accordingly, the application similar
to IA No.1 of 2023 came to be allowed.
19. Learned senior advocate further submitted that even though civil appeals were filed before the
Hon’ble Apex Court, challenging both these orders, the same came to be dismissed vide order
dated 17.05.2024 keeping open the question of law raised therein to be decided in an
appropriate case. Therefore, on facts similar petitions came to be dismissed and the orders
reached finality. He further submitted that the similar Election Petition No.13 of 2023 was
also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by allowing
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, rejecting the petition. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot succeed in the present matter.
20. Learned senior advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S
Subramaniam Balaji v/s State of Tamil Nadu2 in support of his contention
that the Hon’ble Apex Court considering a similar set of facts where promise was made about
freebies by a political party in the State of Tamil Nadu categorically held that scheme for
distribution of free goods or freebies as part of public welfare scheme in fulfillment of election
2 2013 9 SCC 659
9
promises made by the winning political party in its election manifesto, upon coming to power
will not amount to corrupt practice. Learned senior advocate submitted that the Hon’ble Apex
Court while answering the issue as to whether promises of a political party do constitute a
corrupt practice recorded a categorical finding that it does not.
21. Therefore, it is a fit case for rejection of the petition as it does not disclose any cause of action.
In view of the above, learned senior advocate prayed for allowing IA No. 1 of 2023 and to
reject the election petition as devoid of merits in the interest of justice.
22. Per contra, learned senior advocate for the petitioner opposing IA No.1 of 2023 contended
that very serious allegations are made against the respondent in the petition, which requires a
detailed consideration by this Court. Learned senior advocate contended that the co-ordinate
Benches in Election Petition Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 have not taken into consideration the
contentions taken by the petitioners, while passing the order. She also submitted that due to
health reasons, she could not appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court when the civil appeals
came to be disposed off. Therefore, a review petition is filed seeking permission to address
the arguments on merits in detail. Such a request was accepted by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and the matter is now pending for consideration. Therefore, she submits that the decisions
rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Election Petition Nos.14 and 15 of 2023
are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same cannot be a basis to allow IA No. 1
of 2023.
23. Learned senior advocate further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case made
out in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra) were entirely different. The summary of the
case as highlighted in paragraph 84 discloses that judicial interference is permissible when the
acts of respondent is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions, and when the
expenditure that are being incurred is not for the benefit of the State. The Hon’ble Apex Court
has also made it clear that when the schemes challenged are not in consonance with Article
14 of the Constitution of India, interference by the Court is mandated. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has also made it very clear that the constitution has provided various checks and
balances before implementing the scheme. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court
regarding passing of suitable appropriation bill for implementation of such schemes is no more
res-integra in view of its later decision in Bhim Singh Vs Union of India3,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court settled the scheme for its proper implementation. Therefore,
3 (2010) 5 SCC 538
10
a scheme for implementation is before us and the manifesto, which is under challenge in this
petition could be considered under the said scheme.
24. Learned senior advocate alternatively contended that Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution
of India excludes the jurisdiction of either the High Court or Supreme Court, except the
jurisdiction of Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to entertain
any matter pertaining to the process of election. Article 323(b)(f) of the Constitution of India
refers to elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State, but excluding the matters referred to in Articles 329 and 329A and
accordingly, the RP Act was enacted. It is only the Election Tribunal which is constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Constitution of India will have the right to consider all these
questions pertaining to the elections. She also referred to Article 329-B of the Constitution of
India to contend that there is a bar for interference in such matters even by the constitutional
Court except under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in
S Subramaniam Balaji (supra) assumed jurisdiction to consider all these questions
and to give a finding while acting under its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the said decision is
without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Hence, it is to be ignored by this Court. It
is only the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Constitution of India is
competent to consider any such matters but not either the High Court or Supreme Court
invoking the writ jurisdiction.
25. Learned senior advocate referred to the preamble of RP Act, 1951, to contend that the
Parliament has enacted the law to guide conduct of elections to the House of Parliament and
House of Legislature of each State and also to consider qualifications or disqualifications of
the members. It is to check the corrupt practices and other offences connected with such
elections and also to consider the disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.
26. Learned senior advocate by referring the definitions of the word 'appropriate authority',
'election' and 'political party' as defined under Section 2(b), (d) and (f) of RP Act, 1951 along
with Section 29-A of RP Act in part IV-A, contended that the Karnataka Pradesh Congress
Committee (KPCC) is not a political party recognized under the Act. It is only the Indian
National Congress which was registered as a political party is recognized by law. She further
submitted that the election manifesto produced as per Annexure-F was not issued by Indian
National Congress as tried to be projected, but it was by KPCC, which makes all the
difference. Learned senior advocate also referred to Section 2(h) of the Election Symbols (R
& A) Order 1968 in support of her such contention. Under such circumstances, KPCC not
being a registered political party, could not have issued the election manifesto promising to
11
distribute freebies which is detrimental to the fiscal health of the State. The Committee could
not have indulged in corrupt practice of polluting the minds of the voters for the purpose of
getting the votes and spend public money lavishly unmindful of the development of the State.
27. Learned senior advocate referring to IA.1 of 2023 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC
read with Section 87 of RP Act contended that none of these provisions are applicable for the
respondent to seek rejection of the petition. The election petition is filed by the petitioner as
per the procedure contemplated under High Court Rules. The requirement as referred to in
Sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 of RP Act are complied with in letter and spirit. Order VII Rule
11(a) of CPC refers to rejection of the plaint when it does not disclose cause of action. The
petitioner has stated in so many words about the cause of action for filing the petition. Hence,
the application cannot be entertained.
28. Learned senior advocate referring to the decisions of the constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others Vs Union of India and
Others4 and S R Bommai Vs Union of India5 contended that the Hon'ble Apex
Court ignored the verdict of two larger Benches while deciding S Subramaniam Balaji
(supra) and thus, exceeded its authority and passed the order without jurisdiction. Since the
decision of S Subramaniam Balaji
(supra) is per-incurium, this Court is bound to ignore the same.
29. Learned senior advocate referring to the points for consideration raised in S
Subramaniam Balaji (supra) in paragraph 55 contended that the facts of the case
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was entirely different as the Court was considering the
scheme referred to therein to give a finding as to whether it is violative of Article 14(2) of the
Constitution of India. She referred to Annexure-F - Election manifestation ensuring 5
guarantees to contend that the same would not fall under the purview of public purpose which
is referred to in Chapter-IV of the Constitution of India. While Article 14(2) of the
Constitution of India falls under Chapter-III which refers to equality before law, the 5
guarantees declared in the election manifesto are in clear violation of Article 14(2) of the
Constitution of India. Free bus, Gruhalakshmi and other guarantees were restricted only for
ladies without there being any reasonable justification. When the schemes violate Article
14(2) of the Constitution of India and this discrimination is only on the basis of sex, even
5
12
according to the decision of S Subramaniam Balaji (supra), this Court is required
to interfere with.
30. Learned senior advocate submitted that in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra), the Court
has not decided its jurisdiction and the same was kept open. With reference to Order VII Rule
11(d) of CPC, she submitted that it refers to the words 'barred by any law'. Since the word
"law" not only refers to the law enacted by Parliament or State Legislature, but it also includes
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court by virtue of Article 141 of Constitution of India.
31. Learned senior advocate referred to Article 323-A of Constitution of India which refers to
Administrative Tribunals and highlighted Article 323A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India to
contend that the Tribunal constituted in this Chapter excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts,
except the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India. When
there is clear exclusion of jurisdiction of even the Hon'ble Apex Court, except its jurisdiction
under Article 136 of Constitution of India, it could not have been proceeded to decide the
matter, exercising its power under Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore,
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra), is without
jurisdiction. Hence, the same may be ignored.
32. Learned senior advocate further submitted that it is the settled proposition of law that under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, to consider as to whether the plaint is to be rejected or not, only
the averments made in the plaint is to be taken into consideration along with the documents
relied on by the plaintiff. The defence taken by the respondent in the objection statement or
the documents that are produced by him are not relevant to be taken into consideration at this
stage. Moreover, the averments made in the plaint is to be considered as a whole. It is also the
settled proposition of law that if complicated question of law is to be decided, then the Court
will not venture to proceed to reject the plaint at the threshold, but an opportunity will have
to be given to the petitioner to prove his contention and the decision could be taken regarding
the defence taken by the respondent only after full-fledged trial.
33. Learned senior advocate referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kimneo
Haokip Hangshing v/s Kenn Raikhan and Others6 to contend that the
election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold when disputed facts are raised by the
petitioner, which is to be considered after full-fledged trial.
13
34. Learned senior advocate referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben Vs
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali & Others7 particularly paragraph Nos.23.3 to
23.6 to contend that even if this Court finds that there is no cause of action specifically stated
by the petitioner or disclosed in the petition, the Court is required to scrutinize the entire
petition and the documents that are produced in support of such contentions. If the contentions
taken by the petitioner give rise to a cause of action, then the petition is not liable for rejection.
Learned senior advocate submitted that a pen drive containing the speeches made by the
respondent and voluminous documents which are relevant to be taken into consideration at
the time of trial are produced. Therefore, a full-fledged trial is to be held to enable the
petitioner to prove the allegations, but it is not a case to throw away the petition of the
petitioner at the threshold.
35. Learned senior advocate contended that even though the respondent contends that the co-
ordinate Benches of this Court have rejected the petition in similar matters, nonfiling of the
caste certificate in the prescribed format, filing of several criminal cases either to threaten or
to influence the voters are the peculiar facts pleaded in the present petition. Under such
circumstances, the decision of the co-ordinate Benches will not have any bearing in this
matter.
36. Learned senior advocate further submitted that in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra),
at paragraph No.81, it is categorically held that the correct forum to decide the issue is the
Election Tribunal and not the writ Court in a writ petition. In paragraph 83, the Hon'ble Apex
Court made it clear that the point of jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Apex Court is kept open. In
paragraph 84, it recorded the summary of the finding to hold that the scheme challenged in
that petition is in consonance with Article 14 of Constitution of India. Whereas in the present
case, some of the guarantees declared are meant only for women, which is in clear violation
of Article 14 of Constitution of India. It amounts to discrimination and denial of equality
before the law to all persons within the State, which is the mandate of the Constitution of
India.
37.
Learned senior advocate contended that even though the scheme of freebies is not
challenged in this petition by seeking a specific prayer, the petition is well within Section 100
of RP Act, which is a self-contained enactment. Learned senior advocate referred to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v/s A Santhana
14
Kumar & Ors8 and pointed to Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 to contend that the position of
law is made very clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, it is contended by the learned
senior advocate that this Court being the Election Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide the
issue that is to be framed on the basis of pleading of the parties. No grounds are made out for
rejection of the petition at the threshold. Hence, she prays for dismissal of IA No.1 of 2023
and for framing issues.
38. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the respondent has made out any
ground to allow IA No.1 of 2023 filed for rejection
of the petition?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
39. It is noticed that the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 81 of RP Act to declare
that the respondent has followed corrupt practice and was not qualified to be chosen to contest
the Assembly Election from 40-Chittapur(SC) constituency and therefore, the declaration of
election result in favour of the respondent is to be held as void. Broadly, the contention of the
petitioner could be classified into 4 categories. Primarily, it is the contention of the petitioner
that since the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee published its election manifesto,
assuring of providing five guarantees if they win in the election, it amounts to corrupt practice.
Since the respondent is also part of the Committee as he has proclaimed such guarantees if he
is successful in the election and in view of the same he got elected, he is to be disqualified in
view of Sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(4), 123(6) of RP Act. Secondly, it is the contention of
the petitioner that the caste certificate produced by the respondent while filing the nomination
was meant for Gram Panchayat election for the period 2020-21. The same was not valid for
the Assembly Election and therefore, the respondent is to be disqualified. Thirdly, it is the
contention of the petitioner that the respondent has misled the voters regarding his educational
qualification by giving different versions at different times. It is stated that he proclaimed that
he is a law graduate even though he declared that he studied only upto PUC in the earlier
nomination papers. Fourthly, it is the contention of the petitioner that a false criminal cases
15
were registered by the respondent against others to threaten them from participating freely in
the general election.
40. The respondent has filed IA.1 of 2023 seeking rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC. On consideration of the rival contentions as highlighted above, learned senior
advocate for the respondent has contended broadly that there is no format prescribed under
RP Act to declare the caste of the candidate. Section 33 (2) of RP Act only mandates
declaration of his caste which the respondent has declared in the nomination paper. The copy
of nomination paper is produced before this Court where the respondent has specifically
declared that he is a member of Mahar - which is a scheduled caste. It is not the contention
of the petitioner that the respondent does not belong to Mahar caste nor it is his contention
that Mahar caste is not a Scheduled Caste. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that
the format produced as per Annexure-A is meant to be submitted to the Gram Panchayat
election for the years 2020-21 and not for Assembly Election. Section 33(2) of RP Act
mandates to provide a declaration by the candidate specifying the caste or tribe of which he is
a member and the area in relation to which caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or as the case
may be a Scheduled Tribe of the State. Therefore, it is the requirement of law under the
special enactment that the candidate shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill the seat unless
the nomination paper contains such declaration.
41. The materials produced before the Court, in particular Annexure - A is a certificate in Form-
B issued by the Tahsildar of Chittapur certifying that the respondent is a member of Mahar -
a scheduled caste. The copy of nomination paper submitted by the respondent to the Returning
Officer clearly discloses that it contains a declaration that he is a member of Mahar - the
Scheduled Caste of the State of Karnataka in relation to Chittapur area. Under such
circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has not submitted caste
certificate in the prescribed format cannot be accepted, that too, when the petitioner never
disputed the fact that the respondent is a member of Mahar - Scheduled Caste.
42. The other contention raised by the petitioner is with regard to the respondent indulging in
corrupt practice with reference to Section 123 of RP Act. This contention is with reference
to the election manifesto relied on by the respondent while contesting the election promising
various guarantees which is termed as freebies, to win over the voters.
43. In this regard, learned senior advocate for the respondent placed reliance on decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the following point as referred to in paragraph
16
55.1(i) as under:
"55.1(i) Whether the promises made by the political
parties in the election manifesto would amount to 'corrupt
practices' is as per Section 123 of RP Act?"
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court gave a finding on the above point at paragraphs 57, 61,
61.1, 61.2, 61.3 and 61.4 as under:
"57. Keeping the parameters fixed in the above
section, we have to analyse the claim of both the parties
hereunder. A perusal of clauses (1) to (8) of Section 123
makes it clear that it speaks only about a candidate or his
agent or any other person. There is no word about political
parties. Taking note of the conditions mandated in those
sub-sections, let us test the respective stand of both the
parties.
61. As appealing this argument may sound good,
the implementation of this suggestion becomes difficult on
more than one count:
61.1. Firstly, if we are to declare that every kind of
promises made in the election manifesto is a corrupt
practice, this will be flawed. Since all promises made in the
election manifesto are not necessarily promising freebies
per se, for instance, the election manifesto of a political
party promising to develop a particular locality if they come
into power, or promising cent per cent employment for all
young graduates, or such other acts. Therefore, it will be
misleading to construe that all promises in the election
manifesto would amount to corrupt practice. Likewise, it is
not within the domain of this Court to legislate what kind of
promises can or cannot be made in the election manifesto.
61.2. Secondly, the manifesto of a political party is
a statement of its policy. The question of implementing the
manifesto arises only if the political party forms a
Government. It is the promise of a future Government. It is
not a promise of an individual candidate. Section 123 and
17
other relevant provisions, upon their true construction,
contemplate corrupt practice by individual candidate or his
agent. Moreover, such corrupt practice is directly linked to
his own election irrespective of the question whether his
party forms a Government or not. The provisions of the RP
Act clearly draw a distinction between an individual
candidate put up by a political party and the political party
as such. The provisions of the said Act prohibit an
individual candidate from resorting to promises, which
constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
123 of the RP Act. The provisions of the said Act place no
fetter on the power of the political parties to make
promises in the election manifesto.
61.3. Thirdly, the provisions relating to corrupt
practice are penal in nature and, therefore, the rule of
strict interpretation must apply and hence, promises by a
political party cannot constitute a corrupt practice on the
part of the political party as the political party is not within
the sweep of the provisions relating to corrupt practices. As
the rule of strict interpretation applies, there is no scope
for applying provisions relating to corrupt practice
contained in the said Act to the manifesto of a political
party.
61.4. Lastly, it is a settled law that the courts
cannot issue a direction for the purpose of laying down a
new norm for characterising any practice as corrupt
practice. Such directions would amount to amending
provisions of the said Act. The power to make law
exclusively vests in the Union Parliament and as long as
the field is covered by parliamentary enactments, no
directions can be issued as sought by the appellant. As an
outcome, we are not inclined to hold the promises made by
the political parties in their election manifesto as corrupt
practice under Section 123 of the RP Act."
18
45.
Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered similar questions as to whether giving
promises in the election manifesto by the political parties would amount to corrupt practices
or not as referred to under Section 123 of RP Act, recorded a clear finding that it is not. It
is held that it is left to the discretion of the Parliament to lay down any norms. Under such
circumstances, this Court cannot proceed to give a finding inconsistent with the findings
recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
46.
Learned senior advocate for the petitioner referring to paragraphs 85 and 86 in S
Subramaniam Balaji (supra) contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court indeed has
held that distribution of freebies of any kind undoubtedly influence all people which shakes
the root of free and fair election to a large degree and therefore, directed Election Commission
to frame guidelines in consultation with the registered political parties which could act as a
moral code of conduct for the purpose of reserving purity of the election process and to enable
the Commission to hold free and fair election. Accordingly, the Election Commission of
India framed model code of conduct after convening the meeting with all the registered
political parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Hon'ble Apex Court has accepted such
corrupt practice of giving guarantees about distribution of freebies by a political party while
contesting the election.
47. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the contentions of the parties before it elaborately where
the Government of Tamilnadu had came up with similar election manifesto of distributing
colour TVs, Laptops, Mixer Grinders etc., to a group of citizens. It is held that the concept of
livelihood and standard of living has changed considerably as the time passes. What was
once considered to be a luxury has become a necessary after efflux of time. Since the concept
of livelihood is no longer confined to bare physical existence by providing food, cloth and
shelter, it was held that distributing largesse in the form of such colour TVs, Laptops etc., to
a group of persons is directly related to Directive Principles of State Policy. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has also held that the functioning of the Government is controlled by the
Constitution, the laws of the land, the Legislature and the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India. It refers to Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India, dealing with executive
power of Union of India and the State, which is co-extensive with its legislative power,
enables the Government to frame a scheme in exercise of its executive powers. It is also
noticed that there are various checks and balances within the mandate of Constitution before
a scheme can be implemented as long as such schemes are within the realm of public purpose
and the money for the scheme is withdrawn with appropriation of bills. Under such
circumstances, it was held that the Court has limited power to interfere with such schemes.
19
The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the rival contentions raised before it summarized its
findings at paragraph 84 of the judgment and held that the promises in the election manifesto
cannot be read into Section 123 of RP Act for declaring it to be a corrupt practice. Thus, such
promises in the election manifesto do not constitute as a corrupt practice under prevailing
law. By referring to its earlier decision in Ramachandra G Kapse Vs Haribansh
Ramakbal Singh9, re-iterated that ex-facie contents of a manifesto by itself cannot be
a corrupt practice committed by the candidate of that party.
48. It is relevant to note that such schemes were challenged in the said writ petition and in the light
of such challenge, it was held that it falls within the realm of fulfilling Directive Principle of State
Policy and thereby falling within the scope of public purpose. It is also made clear that judicial
interference is permissible only when the action of the Government is unconstitutional or contrary to
a statutory provision and not when such action is not wise or that the extent of expenditure is not for
the good of the State. The Court held the petition before it is fit for dismissal dehors the jurisdiction
issue and held that such issue of jurisdiction is left open to be considered by the Court later.
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, held that in reality distribution of freebies of any kind
undoubtedly influences all people, it shakes the root of free and fair election to a large degree. It
vitiates the electoral process. However, it is stated that the Court has limited power to issue directions
to the legislature to legislate on a particular issue. Therefore, the Election Commission of India was
called upon to frame guidelines for the same in consultation with all the recognized political parties
for election manifesto to be released by political party in the form of model code of conduct for such
parties and the candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with similar issue of promising distribution
of freebies in the election manifesto and observed that such practices would definitely affect the fiscal
health of the State and influences the general public in exercising their franchise, which is already
highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court with necessary directions to the Election Commission. In the
meantime, the Court has also exercised restraint to interfere with distribution of such freebies as
promised in the manifesto.
50. When the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the objections regarding its jurisdiction kept it
open to be decided in any other appropriate matter, the contention of the learned senior advocate for
the petitioner to ignore the decision in S Subramaniam Balaji (supra) on the ground that it
is inconsistent, passed without jurisdiction or that it is per-incurium, cannot be accepted.
51.It is pertinent to note that KPCC, the State unit of Indian National Congress has issued the
manifesto providing 5 guarantees to the citizens if they are elected to power. Admittedly, as many as
20
136 candidates won the elections with the help of same election manifesto. It is a matter of fact that
the petitioner has never challenged declaration of results of many such candidates, but has chosen to
challenge the election of the respondent. Moreover, there is no reason for not challenging the scheme
of such manifesto issued by the political party.
52. It is brought to the notice of the Court that similar petitions were filed before this Court in Election
Petition Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2023, wherein similar contentions were raised. In all these petitions,
the applications that were filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC were allowed and the Election
Petitions were dismissed, as there is no cause of action and there is no triable issue. Admittedly, in
Election Petition Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court
were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same were not entertained. Under such
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned senior advocate to
dismiss the application filed by the respondent.
53. In view of all these facts and circumstances, without discussing much on the subject, I am of the
opinion that the contention taken by the petitioner that the election manifesto of which the petitioner
is a party, amounts to corrupt practice as referred to in Section 123 of RP Act, is liable to be rejected
and accordingly, it is rejected.
54. The next contention raised by the petitioner is with regard to registration of false criminal cases
by the respondent against others in order to threaten and prevent them from participating freely in the
general election. The materials placed before the Court discloses that Crime No.113 of 2023 of
Chowk Police Station was registered against one Manikanta Rathod, but the same was registered on
19.06.2023 i.e., after Assembly Election and moreover, the informant was not the respondent, but it
was somebody else. There is reference to Crime No.33 of 2023 of Sadashivanagar Police Station,
which was registered on 13.02.2023 i.e., before declaration of Assembly Election in Karnataka.
Under such circumstances, even this contention taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
55. The other contention raised by the petitioner is with regard to non disclosure of proper educational
qualification of the respondent in the nomination paper and thereby misleading the voters. It is
contended by the petitioner that there was a paper publication with reference to the respondent that
he is a law graduate. But his declaration in the nomination papers is that he studied only upto PUC.
Admittedly, even in earlier declarations, the respondent has declared his educational qualification as
PUC. Under such circumstances, the paper publication cannot be relied on to contend that the same
was with an intention to mislead the voters. Interestingly, this paper publication is dated 12.06.2023,
which is much after declaration of election results.
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (supra), made it clear
that information relating to education qualifications of contesting candidates do not serve any useful
21
purpose and non disclosure of the same will not violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Thus, it is held that the information regarding educational qualification of a candidate is not essential
component of Right to information. Moreover, the special enactment does not mandate disclosure of
such information while filing the nomination paper. Under such circumstances, even this contention
of the petitioner is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.
57. It is pertinent to note that after considering the contentions taken by the petitioner, it is not
satisfying any of the grounds highlighted under Section 100 of RP Act to declare the election to be
void. It is settled proposition of law that in order to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,
only the averments made in the plaint is to be taken into consideration. Even after taking into
considerations the averments made in the plaint, if it does not disclose cause of action, then the plaint
is liable to be rejected. In the present case, the election petition which is in the form of plaint does not
disclose any cause of action to try the petition. It is the settled position of law that there has to be
pleading of material facts for the purpose of raising serious triable issue. In the absence of any such
material facts, it cannot be said there is any triable issue and therefore, the petition is liable to be
rejected.
58. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to frame
an issue to try the same. The grounds made out in the petition do not disclose any cause of action
and under such circumstances, the application IA.1 of 2023 filed by the respondent is liable to be
allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I)
IA.1 of 2023 filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with
Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, is hereby allowed.
II)
Consequently, the Election Petition is rejected.
In view of the rejection of election petition, all pending IAs stands disposed off.
Sd
(M G UMA)
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 ಪÎಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ£ಾĩಾĸಗಳ…, ಕ£ಾಟಕ ªಾಜÍಪತÎ, ಸಾĸ ೇಂ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: 2026.02.11 10:53:15 +05'30'