By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking disqualification of 99 Congress MPs, who were benefited rom Ghar Ghar Guarantee cheme, saying that the court is dissatisfied with regard to the bona fides and credentials of the petitioner.
However, while dismissing the PIL filed by one Bharti Devi of Fatehpur, a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam gave liberty to the petitioner file a fresh petition after making required disclosures, if so advised.
As per high court rules amended after a judgment given by the apex court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (2010 AIR SCW 1029), a person while filing a PIL must disclose that he had not filed this PIL without any ulterior motives and has no vested interest involved in it.
In the PIL, the petitioner had sought disqualification of 99 Congress MPs, who were benefitted from Ghar Ghar Guarantee Scheme, which involves distribution of guarantee cards promising various financial and material benefits in exchange of votes, which according to petitioner amounts to ‘bribery’ under the Representation of People’s Act.
The PIL had also sought action against the Election Commission of India (ECI), accusing it of failing to act against the Indian National Congress (INC) over its controversial ‘Ghar Ghar Guarantee’ scheme. The petitioner had called for urgent judicial intervention to uphold electoral integrity.
As per PIL, the ‘Ghar Ghar Guarantee’ scheme, which involves the distribution of guarantee cards promising various financial and material benefits in exchange for votes, amounts to bribery under Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and is punishable under Sections 171B and 171E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Despite the ECI’s advisory issued on May 2, 2024, warning political parties against such practices, the petition alleges that the INC continued its distribution of these cards, compromising the fairness of the electoral process.
The petitioner had criticized the ECI for its inaction, accusing it of neglecting its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. The PIL sought directions from the court to compel the ECI to suspend or withdraw the INC’s recognition as a ‘political party’ under Section 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Additionally, it calls for the disqualification of 99 INC Members of Parliament who were allegedly benefited from these practices, and the initiation of criminal proceedings against those responsible.
This legal challenge highlighted the growing concern over the ECI’s role in maintaining electoral integrity, urging the court to take decisive action to protect the democratic process in India.
