High Court dismisses petition againstSiddaramaiah’s election from Varuna

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court recently dismissed an election petition challenging the election of chief minister Siddaramaiah from Varuna assembly constituency in Mysuru in the 2023 state assembly polls.
"The plaint is liable to be rejected both on the ground of ‘want of cause of action' and being barred by law. A perusal of the election petition indicates that it is drafted with no attention to detail, with vague pleadings, factual errors, and replication of pleadings from other election petitions," Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted in his order.
One KM Shankara, who claimed to be a voter from Varuna and to have served as a gram panchayat member from Someshwarapura, Koodanahalli, sought for Siddaramaiah's victory to be declared void under several provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of The People Act. Citing the Gruha Jyothi, Gruha Lakshmi, Anna Bhagya, Yuva Nidhi, and Shakthi schemes, the petitioner argued that the five guarantees are corrupt practices amounting to bribery and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of The People Act.
On the other hand, Siddaramaiah contended that the petitioner failed to produce material facts or instances to substantiate allegations of corrupt practice. He argued it is his political party (Congress) that announced welfare schemes and measures as part of its progressive manifesto.
"Promises made in the manifesto would not amount to corrupt practice committed by an individual candidate. Election manifestos are not legally binding documents but serve as moral commitments," Siddaramaiah argued, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the S Subramaniam Balaji v State of Tamil Nadu and Others case, which held that promises outlined in a manifesto cannot constitute corrupt practice.
Justice Yadav also noted that it is a settled position of law that: "The mandate for presentation of petition under Section 81 of the RP Act is for its presentation within 45 days from the date of the election of the returned candidate."
While dismissing the petition, Justice Yadav went on to state: "It is held that material facts cannot be introduced by way of amendment beyond the period prescribed under Section 81 of the Act. On such ground, the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be read into provisions of the Representation of The People Act, which is a special legislation."