In a recent session, the Supreme Court received information asserting that the pre-election commitments made by political parties could be considered a corrupt practice and tantamount to a "bribe" under the Representation of the People Act. This revelation suggests that such assurances might be grounds for declaring an election void.

A panel of three judges, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, was engaged in discussions on several petitions, including one submitted by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. This specific petition opposed the common practice of political parties promising freebies during election campaigns. The petitions urge the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to exercise its authority to freeze the election symbols of concerned parties and revoke their registration.

Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria informed the bench that a reevaluation of a 2013 judgment was essential. In the case of S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, a two-judge bench concluded that commitments in election manifestos did not fall within the scope of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act as a corrupt practice.

Hansaria argued before the bench, which included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stating that the interpretation in the S Subramanium Balaji case was not legally sound. According to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, the term 'bribery' is considered a corrupt practice, encompassing any gift, offer, or promise made with the intention of influencing an elector.

Hansaria contended that the commitments made by political parties could be viewed as a form of bribery as defined in Section 123(1)(A) of the Act, falling under the category of corrupt practices. If additional conditions in the same section are met, he argued, it could provide grounds for declaring the election void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act.

Previously, the Supreme Court had instructed the listing of petitions challenging the practice of political parties promising pre-election freebies before a three-judge bench. The court acknowledged preliminary issues, including the extent of judicial intervention, the feasibility of enforceable orders, and the potential appointment of a commission or expert body to address the matter.

Today, the Supreme Court is set to consider Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging these commitments to provide freebies by political parties during election campaigns.