Supreme Court Questions Motives Behind Bihar Election Annulment Plea
The Supreme Court of India has firmly declined to entertain a petition filed by Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party that sought to annul the recently conducted Bihar Assembly elections and order fresh polls in the state. In a significant development, the apex court raised serious questions about the political motivations behind the legal challenge.
Judicial Platform for Popularity?
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed skepticism about the petition's intent, suggesting it might be an attempt to gain political popularity through judicial means after electoral defeat. "How many votes did your political party get in the election? People reject, and you use judicial platforms for popularity," CJI Surya Kant pointedly asked senior counsel C U Singh, who represented Kishor's party.
The court allowed the petition to be withdrawn, enabling the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court instead. The bench emphasized that the Supreme Court was not the appropriate first forum for such state-specific electoral matters.
Constitutional Challenge to Cash Transfer Scheme
The Jan Suraaj Party's plea primarily challenged the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana during the Model Code of Conduct period. The party contended that the cash transfer scheme, which provided financial assistance to women, was illegal and violated multiple constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 21, 112, 202, and 324.
Senior counsel Singh argued that Bihar, being "one of the most indebted states in the country," had distributed approximately Rs 15,600 crores as "an immediate pre-election dole" without proper budgetary support or allocation. He emphasized that the scheme enrolled an additional 25-35 lakh beneficiaries after the Model Code of Conduct came into effect.
Court Distinguishes Legal from Policy Matters
Justice Bagchi made a crucial distinction during the proceedings, noting that "there is a difference between a legal, constitutional question and the wisdom of the government in following a fiscal economic policy." The court maintained that even if the allegations were correct, they would need to be proven in an election petition demonstrating how the scheme specifically benefited particular candidates, constituting corrupt practice.
The CJI further explained that the petition essentially represented "a composite election petition pertaining to every election asking us to set aside every election," which didn't follow prescribed legal formats for such challenges.
Appropriate Forum and Bona Fide Concerns
The Supreme Court repeatedly questioned why the petitioner hadn't first approached the Patna High Court. "What is the logic of not going to the HC? It pertains to a state, and the HC is the most convenient platform, they can call for records, etc. This is not a pan-India issue," CJI Surya Kant remarked.
Singh countered that he had approached the Supreme Court because it had already issued notice in a similar matter challenging direct cash transfer schemes like the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi during election periods. However, the CJI distinguished the Bihar scheme from national direct transfer programs.
Scheme Details and Freebies Examination
The contested scheme, announced on August 29, 2025, promised Rs 10,000 each to all beneficiaries of the Jeevika scheme, with eligibility criteria excluding income tax payers and government employees. Singh emphasized that "the first Rs 10,000 is without assessment," while another Rs 2 lakh was promised after proper evaluation.
The CJI acknowledged that the Supreme Court is examining the broader issue of freebies offered by political parties before elections but clarified that "we would like to examine the issue at the instance of some public-spirited person because if this political party gets power, they will do the same thing which they are now accusing the other of."
The court expressed concern about examining such matters "at the instance of a political party which wants to settle political scores before us," emphasizing the importance of bona fide intentions in constitutional challenges.
