The supreme court turned down a PIL that sought to hold political parties accountable for the election promises they made in their manifestos back in 2015. It meant that no election manifesto pledge made by a political party could be carried out by the average voter. The voter is well aware that he cannot hold any political party accountable for any incentives—rational or otherwise—that they may have received in exchange for his support. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that these lofty promises are improperly influencing the electorate.
The statutory organisation responsible for overseeing all aspects of holding elections is the election commission of India. Even yet, it has chosen not to regulate parties that make specific polling-related pledges. It took the stance that giving away free things is a party policy decision and that the commission cannot control state policies and actions that the victorious party may make when it becomes the government. According to the central government, "freebies" skew voters' informed choices and can bring about a financial crisis. But how can it be stated that these pledges will influence a voter's choice when they are not enforceable by the average voter?
Any political party that wins an election has the backing of its constituents and the responsibility to uphold the delicate balance between the state's economy and the welfare of the populace. As of right now, neither can the court stop political parties from making pledges, nor can it make them binding on the parties. The courts have a constitutional obligation to make sure that the elected government abides by the Constitution's provisions since free and fair elections are a fundamental component of our Constitution.
What defines an illogical promise is the question that demands careful consideration since any irrational, arbitrary misuse of public funds that may effect the elections can very well be checked by the courts. Will the free education promised actually be free? Can free lunches, midday meals, minimum necessary power units, etc., be referred to be freebies? Can free electronics and consumer goods be considered welfare? What is the best way to spend public money should not be the focus of the judiciary; rather, it should be to prevent willful abuse. Every State in india has unique requirements and goals, so no court can set rules for how public funds should be used consistently.
The statutory organisation responsible for overseeing all aspects of holding elections is the election commission of India. Even yet, it has chosen not to regulate parties that make specific polling-related pledges. It took the stance that giving away free things is a party policy decision and that the commission cannot control state policies and actions that the victorious party may make when it becomes the government. According to the central government, "freebies" skew voters' informed choices and can bring about a financial crisis. But how can it be stated that these pledges will influence a voter's choice when they are not enforceable by the average voter?
Any political party that wins an election has the backing of its constituents and the responsibility to uphold the delicate balance between the state's economy and the welfare of the populace. As of right now, neither can the court stop political parties from making pledges, nor can it make them binding on the parties. The courts have a constitutional obligation to make sure that the elected government abides by the Constitution's provisions since free and fair elections are a fundamental component of our Constitution.
What defines an illogical promise is the question that demands careful consideration since any irrational, arbitrary misuse of public funds that may effect the elections can very well be checked by the courts. Will the free education promised actually be free? Can free lunches, midday meals, minimum necessary power units, etc., be referred to be freebies? Can free electronics and consumer goods be considered welfare? What is the best way to spend public money should not be the focus of the judiciary; rather, it should be to prevent willful abuse. Every State in india has unique requirements and goals, so no court can set rules for how public funds should be used consistently.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel