The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the Jan Suraaj Party (JSP) challenging the validity of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, after the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea and approach the high court instead.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the party to pursue its grievance before the appropriate high court, Live Law reported.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice made oral observations on the nature of the challenge and the circumstances in which it had been brought.
“Freebies issue is being examined by us seriously. We would like to go into an apt case, but not at the instance of a party that has lost everything in the election,” the CJI remarked.
He further observed, “If people reject, then you approach the judicial forum to get popularity.”
The Jan Suraaj Party had suffered a rout in its first electoral contest. In the Assembly results announced in November 2025, the party failed to secure even a single seat despite contesting more than 230 constituencies.
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) returned to power with a decisive majority of 202 seats in the 243-member Assembly, while the JSP polled around 3.4 per cent of the vote, with most of its candidates losing their security deposits.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleged serious electoral irregularities, particularly the direct transfer of Rs 10,000 to women voters while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force.
The party contended that the announcement was made without prior scrutiny and covered more than 1.56 crore women.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh argued that the transfer amounted to an election inducement and disturbed the level playing field in a fiscally stressed state.
“The Model Code of Conduct is in every state… to offer so many crores as an election dole, without any budgetary support, will completely disrupt the level playing field,” Singh submitted.
He also pointed out that the only eligibility condition for receiving the amount was that the woman or her husband should not be an income tax payer or hold a government job.
The bench, however, expressed reservations about the maintainability of the petition. Justice Bagchi questioned under which provision of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act an entire election could be invalidated. CJI Kant described the plea as a “composite election petition” seeking an “omnibus” order, stressing that allegations of corrupt practices must be raised against individual candidates through properly instituted election petitions before the competent forum.
When Singh suggested that the prayers could be segregated to confine the case to the issue of “freebies,” the Chief Justice directed the petitioner to approach the high court, observing that the issue did not have pan-India implications warranting the Supreme Court’s intervention at this stage.
Among its specific prayers, the petition had sought directions to the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act to take action against the transfer of Rs 10,000 to about 25–35 lakh women voters.
It also challenged the deployment of 1.8 lakh women beneficiaries associated with the self-help group JEEVIKA at polling stations, terming the practice illegal and unfair.
The JSP had further urged the court to enforce the Supreme Court’s directions in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), seeking comprehensive guidelines on welfare schemes and Direct Benefit Transfers announced by ruling parties before the notification of election schedules.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the party to pursue its grievance before the appropriate high court, Live Law reported.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice made oral observations on the nature of the challenge and the circumstances in which it had been brought.
“Freebies issue is being examined by us seriously. We would like to go into an apt case, but not at the instance of a party that has lost everything in the election,” the CJI remarked.
He further observed, “If people reject, then you approach the judicial forum to get popularity.”
The Jan Suraaj Party had suffered a rout in its first electoral contest. In the Assembly results announced in November 2025, the party failed to secure even a single seat despite contesting more than 230 constituencies.
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) returned to power with a decisive majority of 202 seats in the 243-member Assembly, while the JSP polled around 3.4 per cent of the vote, with most of its candidates losing their security deposits.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleged serious electoral irregularities, particularly the direct transfer of Rs 10,000 to women voters while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force.
The party contended that the announcement was made without prior scrutiny and covered more than 1.56 crore women.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh argued that the transfer amounted to an election inducement and disturbed the level playing field in a fiscally stressed state.
“The Model Code of Conduct is in every state… to offer so many crores as an election dole, without any budgetary support, will completely disrupt the level playing field,” Singh submitted.
He also pointed out that the only eligibility condition for receiving the amount was that the woman or her husband should not be an income tax payer or hold a government job.
The bench, however, expressed reservations about the maintainability of the petition. Justice Bagchi questioned under which provision of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act an entire election could be invalidated. CJI Kant described the plea as a “composite election petition” seeking an “omnibus” order, stressing that allegations of corrupt practices must be raised against individual candidates through properly instituted election petitions before the competent forum.
When Singh suggested that the prayers could be segregated to confine the case to the issue of “freebies,” the Chief Justice directed the petitioner to approach the high court, observing that the issue did not have pan-India implications warranting the Supreme Court’s intervention at this stage.
Among its specific prayers, the petition had sought directions to the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act to take action against the transfer of Rs 10,000 to about 25–35 lakh women voters.
It also challenged the deployment of 1.8 lakh women beneficiaries associated with the self-help group JEEVIKA at polling stations, terming the practice illegal and unfair.
The JSP had further urged the court to enforce the Supreme Court’s directions in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), seeking comprehensive guidelines on welfare schemes and Direct Benefit Transfers announced by ruling parties before the notification of election schedules.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment