E-Paper
Karnataka high court issues notice to CM over plea alleging poll malpractices
Karnataka high court issued notice to chief minister Siddaramaiah seeking response to the petition seeks to nullify Siddaramaiah’s election from the Varuna assembly constituency
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court on Friday issued a notice to chief minister Siddaramaiah in response to an election petition filed by a voter. The petition seeks to nullify Siddaramaiah’s election from the Varuna assembly constituency in the recently concluded state assembly elections, alleging electoral malpractices.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav issued the notice to the chief minister based on the plea that accused Siddaramaiah of indulging in electoral malpractices during the elections.
The petition was filed by KM Shankar, a voter from Varuna, who has served as a gram panchayat member from Someshwarapura, Koodanahalli. In the plea, Shankar requested the court to take appropriate action to set aside Siddaramaiah’s election victory from the Varuna constituency. The basis for this demand was Siddaramaiah’s alleged involvement in corrupt practices through the implementation of five guarantee schemes.
The Congress party, in its manifesto, had put forward five guarantees aimed at benefiting the people of Karnataka. These guarantees included ‘Gruha Jyothi,’ which promised 200 units of free electricity to all households; ‘Gruha Lakshmi,’ offering ₹2,000 every month to each woman heading a family; ‘Anna Bhagya,’ ensuring 10 kilograms of food grains per month to every member of below poverty line families; ‘Yuva Nidhi,’ allocating ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders; and ‘Uchita Prayana/Shakthi,’ granting free bus rides to women across state.
In the petition, it was argued that these guarantees were presented as offers and promises not only by Siddaramaiah as a candidate but also by the Indian National Congress party. The petitioner claimed that these promises were made with the chief minister’s consent and were intended to gratify the electorate in the Varuna constituency, thereby directly influencing them to vote in favour of the Congress party’s candidate.
“They are in the form of gratification to the electorate of the Varuna constituency and with the object of directly inducing the electorate to vote for the Congress party candidate namely the respondent. The consideration was the vote in favour of the respondent as a gratification with the motive and reward,” the petition claimed.
KM Shankara further urged the court to declare Siddaramaiah’s victory as void under various provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. According to Shankara, the chief minister, being the sole respondent in the petition, had engaged in multiple corrupt practices, which were in violation of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act (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).
The petitioner also contended that these guarantees amounted to bribery and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act (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). Moreover, it was argued that these policies contradicted the directive principles of State policy.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav has scheduled the matter for further proceedings on September 1.
In the elections held in May, Siddaramaiah got a landslide victory in the Varuna constituency, defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 46,006 votes and entering the Karnataka Assembly for the ninth time. The 75-year-old leader got 1,19,430 votes against 73,424 polled by his BJP rival V Somanna.
The Karnataka chief minister’s office didn’t provide a response to the notice claiming “the matter was sub-judice” and will be “handed by legal experts.”
