Tall promises made by political parties in their election manifestos got legal sanction as the Supreme Court o... Read More

NEW DELHI: Tall promises made by political parties in their election manifestos got legal sanction as the Supreme Court on Monday refused to tie parties down to their grandiose claims.

Refusing to entertain a PIL by advocate Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, a bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy asked, "Is there any provision in law which makes promises made in the manifesto enforceable against a political party?"

Leaving it for better adjudication in the people's court, the bench said the judiciary was not the cure for every problem in the political system.

Pandey argued that the court should lay down guidelines for framing of manifestos to stop false and illegal promises made by political parties, including regularization of illegal colonies.

But the court reminded the petitioner that the thrust of his plea was to stop unholy post-poll alliances between political parties, who during the bitterly fought elections indulge in mudslinging and later join hands to form government, hoodwinking the people’s mandate.

"Can the courts pass orders banning post-poll alliances? It is for two or more political parties to decide whether or not to form a coalition government after the elections, depending on the fractured nature of the mandate. Can we tell them not to do so because they had accused each other of something or the other during the elections?

"Can we tell two contesting parties, who indulge in mudslinging, never to become friends? If political parties stitch together a post-poll alliance, should we scrap it and order fresh elections at huge cost to the exchequer," the bench asked before dismissing the petition.