A petition challenging Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s 2023 election from the Varuna constituency has now reached the Supreme Court, placing renewed attention on the legal debate surrounding pre-poll welfare promises and their role in electoral ethics. Siddaramaiah, who won the Varuna seat during the 2023 Assembly polls and later became Chief Minister, is facing allegations that his victory was influenced by the Congress party’s widely publicized “five guarantees.” These promises free electricity, free food grains, financial aid for women heads of households, free bus travel for women, and unemployment support for youth formed the core of the Congress campaign and were central to the party’s electoral narrative.
A voter from Varuna, K. Shankara, brought forth a petition arguing that these welfare promises were not merely political commitments but amounted to illegal inducements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to him, the guarantees were designed to unduly influence voters and thus constituted corrupt practices. He further claimed that Siddaramaiah, as a senior leader and key face of the campaign, gave consent to these promises, making him directly responsible for violating electoral provisions. The petition sought to annul Siddaramaiah’s election and requested his disqualification from contesting for six years.
The Karnataka High Court, however, dismissed the petition in April 2025. The court observed that election manifestos, even if attractive or generous, cannot automatically be equated with bribery or undue influence. It emphasized that manifesto promises have long been considered political declarations rather than enforceable legal commitments. The bench also took note of several technical flaws in the petition, including insufficient particulars, discrepancies in the affidavits, and procedural irregularities, which further weakened the petitioner’s case. The court relied on established precedent, including the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case, which held that welfare schemes and promises do not fall within the scope of corrupt electoral practices by themselves.
Despite the High Court’s dismissal, the matter gained new momentum when the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge. On 8 December 2025, a bench headed by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a formal notice to Siddaramaiah, asking him to respond to the allegations. During the preliminary hearing, the bench questioned how a political manifesto could constitute corrupt practice, yet acknowledged that the issue requires deeper examination, especially since similar questions are pending before another bench of the Court. The decision to issue notice signals that the Supreme Court may take a broader look at the legality of welfare-heavy manifestos and their impact on free and fair elections.
At the heart of the case lies a larger national conversation about the boundaries of political promises and whether lavish welfare pledges distort voter choice. A ruling from the Supreme Court could have far-reaching implications, not only for Siddaramaiah but for electoral politics across India. If the Court decides that such guarantees amount to inducement, political parties may be forced to fundamentally rethink how they frame their manifestos and campaign commitments. On the other hand, if the Court upholds existing precedent, the status quo—where manifestos are treated as expressions of policy intent—will continue.
For now, the issue remains open, with the Supreme Court’s final decision likely to influence future elections, manifesto drafting, and the legal interpretation of what truly constitutes a “corrupt practice” under Indian electoral law.
The post Supreme Court takes up challenge to Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah’s 2023 election appeared first on India Legal.