Election manifestos and welfare schemes: manifesto promises are not corrupt practice, and public-purpose welfare measures withstand Article 14 challenge.

Political party manifesto promises, by themselves, do not amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the provision is penal and applies to a candidate, agent, or person acting with the candidate's consent. Welfare schemes tied to Directive Principles and implemented within economic capacity were treated as serving public purpose and were not invalidated under Article 14. Vishaka-style guidelines were rejected because the election-law field was already occupied by statute. The Comptroller and Auditor General's role was held to be post-expenditure audit, not pre-approval of spending. The writ-maintainability issue against a political party was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether promises made by political parties in election manifestos amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) Whether the challenged welfare schemes are within the ambit of public purpose and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether guidelines could be issued by applying the Vishaka principle; (iv) Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has a duty to examine expenditure before it is incurred; (v) Whether writ jurisdiction lies against a political party.

Issue (i): Whether promises made by political parties in election manifestos amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Section 123 is framed in terms of a candidate, his agent, or a person acting with the candidate's consent. The provision is penal in nature and requires strict construction. A political party's manifesto is a statement of policy and, by itself, is not a promise by an individual candidate within the statutory text. The Court also declined to treat every manifesto promise as a corrupt practice, since that would amount to judicial legislation in an occupied field.

Conclusion: Promises made in an election manifesto do not constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenged welfare schemes are within the ambit of public purpose and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The schemes were examined as measures linked to the Directive Principles of State Policy and to the State's power to frame welfare policy within its economic capacity. The Court held that public purpose is not confined to bare subsistence and that the State may, subject to budgetary authorization and constitutional controls, choose the method of implementing welfare. On Article 14, the Court held that these measures were part of welfare administration and that the doctrine against treating unequals as equals was not decisive in this context.

Conclusion: The challenged schemes fall within public purpose and are not invalidated on the ground of Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether guidelines could be issued by applying the Vishaka principle.

Analysis: The Court found no legislative vacuum because the field of corrupt practices in elections is already covered by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Vishaka-type guideline making is available only where there is a gap in enacted law on the subject, not where Parliament has already occupied the field.

Conclusion: The Vishaka principle was not applicable for framing guidelines on the subject covered by the existing election law.

Issue (iv): Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has a duty to examine expenditure before it is incurred.

Analysis: The constitutional and statutory scheme was held to confer an audit function that operates after expenditure has been incurred. The CAG's role is to audit legality, propriety, and validity of expenditure already made, rather than to pre-approve proposed spending.

Conclusion: The Comptroller and Auditor General has no duty to examine expenditure before it is incurred.

Issue (v): Whether writ jurisdiction lies against a political party.

Analysis: The Court did not finally decide this question because the appeal was otherwise liable to fail on merits. The jurisdictional objection was therefore left open.

Conclusion: The issue was left open.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the legality of the impugned welfare schemes and refused to treat manifesto promises as corrupt practice under the election law, while leaving the question of writ maintainability against political parties undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: A political party's election manifesto promises are not, by themselves, corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and welfare schemes backed by constitutional and budgetary authorization may validly be treated as measures serving public purpose.

---