World
India
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired judge Justice S.N. Dhingra, challenging the cash-based schemes announced by political parties ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections.
The court noted that the Supreme Court is already examining similar issues regarding election-time freebies and ruled that parallel proceedings in different courts would not be appropriate. However, it granted the petitioner the liberty to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
Justice Dhingra’s petition argued that these cash-oriented schemes are unconstitutional, as they undermine the integrity of free and fair elections and could unfairly influence voters. The PIL claimed that such schemes amount to election manipulation, distorting the democratic process by offering financial incentives in exchange for votes.
In addition to challenging cash-based election promises, the petition sought directions from the Election Commission of India to prevent political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress, and Aam Aadmi Party, from collecting personal and electoral data of voters under false pretenses. It also requested that these parties be barred from sharing or using such data with third parties.
Filed through advocates Amit Grover, Siddhartha Borgohain, and Harshvardhan Sharma, the plea alleged that these actions constituted corrupt practices and illegal activities that not only violated electoral laws but also infringed upon voters’ fundamental rights, including their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that these activities severely compromise the fairness of the electoral process.
The petition further pointed out that political parties receive various benefits, such as offices in Parliament and state legislative assemblies and land for party offices in the national capital at highly subsidized rates provided by the central government. Given their public role in linking social forces and ideologies with government institutions, the plea argued that political parties should be considered an instrumentality of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution, making them subject to constitutional accountability.
While the court declined to hear the case, its ruling leaves room for the petitioner to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, where similar concerns over election-time freebies and data collection practices are already under judicial review.
Read More: Madras High Court Vacates Stay Against EC Probe Into AIADMK’s Leadership Dispute, Symbol Issues
