The Supreme Court in the case Bhattulal Jain v. Union of India observed and has issued a notice wherein the writ plea is moved challenging the assistance offers announced by the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan as ‘election freebies’.
the bench in the case observed and has issued the notice to the Union of India, States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the Election Commission of India and posted the matter after the period of four weeks.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in the case observed and has stated that the plea moved will be tagged with the an earlier case which raised the issue of election freebies in the case Ashwini Upadhyay v Union of India, which was being referred to the three bench judge in August 2022.
The petitioner in the plea submitted before the court that the financial situation of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh is very bad, as evidenced by the reports of the Reserve Bank of India; nevertheless, the Chief Ministers of these States have announced cash benefits a few months ahead of the assembly elections, which are due the end of this year.
It has also been contended by the petitioner that the situation in the State of MP is so bad that public properties have been mortgaged by the State to take loans.
The bench of Justice CJI DY Chandrachud in the case observed and has asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner that all kinds of promises are made, before the elections.
Adding to it, the court replied that the line has to be drawn between what is public interest and what is not. Thus, while distributing the cash-nothing is more atrocious than permitting the government to distribute cash. The six months before the elections these things start and ultimately the burden is on tax paying citizens of this country.
The bench in the case observed and has agreed to consider the said matter.
Therefore, the bench also asked the petitioners to remove the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh from the array of parties and substitute them with the respective State Governments.
Further, the petitioner in the plea contended before the court that the funds in the Consolidated Fund of India cannot be utilised by a Chief Minister to “lure” voters ahead of elections. The plea moved seek declaration that promise of electoral freebies from the public fund to lure voters amounts to offence of bribery and undue influence under Section 171B and Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioner in the plea also seeks for framing of guidelines to regulate Chief Ministers making announcements of offers by using consolidated funds before elections.