ELECTION MANIFESTO OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS BY - ABHISHEK RAJ & KRISHNA KUMAR
ELECTION MANIFESTO OF POLITICAL
PARTIES IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS[1]
AUTHORED BY - ABHISHEK RAJ
Abstract
This research
paper analyses the role of election manifestos in Indian democracy. It
highlights the importance of manifestos of political parties as a crucial tool
to present their aim and objectives to the electorates, allowing them to make
informed choices. This research paper gives emphasis on lack of legal
accountability and enforceability of promises in India. For the accountability
of political parties for their commitments towards their election manifestos,
there is need of specific legal frameworks and regulations. It also suggests various measures,
including the creation of statutory bodies and legal doctrines, to enhance the
accountability of political parties. In the present research paper doctrinal research method is used, where in the authors have also
used primary sources of legal literature for the study.
Key Words: Accountability, democracy, elections, electorate,
manifesto, political parties, promises.
1. Introduction
Elections are the centerpiece of
democracy. They are the fundamental political events in a democratic society
and the only occasion on which most people become directly involved in
politics. An election is a discovery process, a way of finding out who will be
temporarily in charge of government.[2]
Election Manifesto is a valuable tool
in electoral politics in the hands of political parties; by presenting promises
in the manifesto they display their intention before the election, allowing
voters to make informed choices in democracy. Democracy is a form of
government, which represents equality, human rights, and freedom in the society
and it is a globally accepted form. However, the implementation and the
applicability of this form of government may vary slightly due to numerous
factors, such as historical, political and social.
A leading ethicist, has argued, “The political lies have negative
psychological consequences. When in a political system there is trust deficit
arising due to false promises, the voters and the candidates both are the
losers.”[3] To
address false election promises in political manifestos, a legal scrutiny of
various legal domains such as civil laws and criminal laws should be explored. It
is very essential to ensure the integrity of political commitments in restoring
trust of the people in democratic processes by way of upholding legal
accountability and responsibility of political parties towards election
manifestos.
2. Relationship between democracy, election and the election
manifesto
The idea of ‘who should govern’ has
generally been agreed upon, with the belief that it should be the people.
Various civilizations have employed different types of governments[4] other
than democracy to rule over their populations. However, the roots of democracy
in politics can be traced back to ancient Greece in the 5th Century BC,
particularly in the city-states like Athens. The term 'Democracy' which is
derived from the Greek word d?mokratia, which was coined from d?mos (“people”)
and kratos (“rule”)[5],
signifying ‘rule by people’ or ‘rule by many’. This form of
government allows people to influence the political system directly or via
elected representatives, as seen in democratic republics such as India, U.S.A.,
United Kingdom etc., where power is held by the common people. Essentially,
democracy is a system in which people, either directly or through elected
representatives, govern the political system.
1.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus, defined democracy as,
“Form of government in which the supreme power of
the State is vested in the hands of the
community as a whole.”
[6]
2.
In modern period this definition was revived by Abraham Lincoln
as
“It is a government of
the people, by the people and for the people”[7].
3.
Seeley has given a precise definition as,
“democracy is a
government in which everybody has a share”[8].
India, like many other modern
democratic nations, has a Constitution in place. The Preamble of the
Constitution of India begins by affirming that the country is a Sovereign,
Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic, with people being the sovereign
themselves. It serves as a declaration, which is enshrined as objective in the
ideals and goals of the citizens of India, emphasizing the ultimate power in the
hands of the citizens of the country. The essence of democracy in our
Constitution is well elaborated in the
case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain,[9] Mathew J has observed that:
“the Democracy proceeds on two basic
assumptions:
(1) Popular sovereignty in the sense that the country should be governed
by the representatives of the people,
that all power came
from them, at their pleasure and under their watchful
supervision it must be held; and
(2) That there should be equality
among the citizens in arriving at the decisions affecting them”.[10]
The relationship between democracy, political parties, and elections is
crucial for understanding, how modern societies are governed and how interests
and powers are represented and allocated. Parties nominate candidates, mobilize
voters, and present distinct governance visions, offering voters choices beyond
individuals and endorsing different policy agendas. Through voting, citizens
express their preferences, shape political outcomes, and hold officials
accountable, facilitating peaceful transitions of power crucial for political
stability and continuity in a society. It will be right to say
that democracy thrives on the synergy between political parties and elections
as mechanisms for citizen participation, representation, and governance
accountability. Understanding and nurturing the relationship between democracy,
political parties, and elections is essential for ensuring that democratic
systems remain responsive, inclusive, and resilient in the face of evolving
societal challenges and aspirations.
Manifesto is the British and Italian term for the official
document published by a political party at the start of its election campaign.
The term ‘Manifesto’ has its origin from Italy, that itself derived from the
Latin word, “manifestum”, meaning clear or conspicuous. Its first
recorded use in English is from 1620.[11]
The American term is ‘platform’. Practice and terminology differ
widely across countries. However, for an election campaign, they issue ‘action’
or ‘economic’ programs or sometimes-different booklets for women, youth,
workers and other constituencies. In Australia the Program may not even
be officially printed. Instead, the Party leader may present it in an hour-long
televised address.[12]
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary[13]
‘manifesto’ means:
“A written statement publically
declaring the issuer’s principles, policies or intentions; esp. a form of
document explaining why a State or nation declared war or took some other
significant international action.”
Manifestos can be perceived as a legal agreement between political
parties and the electorates, which outlines the plans and policies of a
political party regarding development of the country. It can also be seen as a
relationship based on essence of social contract between elected officials and
the public. For democracy to function well there shall be trust among subjects
that elections are conducted in free and fair manner. Any kind of fraud or
manipulation during elections can hampers and erodes the confidence of voters
in democratic values. “It is an important tool in the hands of the
political parties, through which it earn the support of voters in formation of
government. These manifestoes provide a platform to the electorates to judge
the aims and objectives of the political parties. After the formation of the
government, performance of the government is critically analyzed based on its
manifesto issued before the election.”[14]
With the rise of electronic and social media, there has been a noticeable
shift in the content and style of election manifestos, with catchy slogans
gaining more traction than detailed policies. Despite this shift, manifestos
are essential in establishing the government's agenda and guiding voters'
choices. It is important for voters to scrutinize manifestos independently to
make informed decisions. While manifestos serve as a measure of a party's
popularity among voters and offer new commitments, there is a need for greater
transparency and dissemination of manifesto promises
to the electorate. The election manifesto of parties fulfills double
functions:
(i)
It compels the political leader to think seriously
about the problems in the country and suggest remedies; and
(ii)
Educates the electorate on the problems and their
possible solutions. The most common issues for all the political parties are
national unity and integrity of the country. The election manifesto also deals
with the issues and problems of the society.
3.
Manifestos in different democratic countries:
The primary goal of election
manifestos is similar worldwide, yet their impact, liability and accountability
can vary depending on the country, reflecting the unique political, social, and
economic contexts. The issue of misleading election promises in manifestos is
not limited to a single nation, accountability and legal enforceability with
respect to this issue is common concern across democratic nations. Many
countries face challenges with false promises made during elections, whether it
is through exaggeration during campaigns, offering freebies, or written
promises in election manifestos. “The political process alone cannot ensure
accountability for broken promises, thus necessitating the need for legal
regulation.”[15]
In United States of America, manifestos of political parties
outline policies covering areas like economic policy, foreign policy,
healthcare, governance reform, environmental issues, and immigration. and are
issued two months prior to the general elections. The federalist system in the
USA places much governance at the State or local level. False campaign promises
harm the political process by spreading misinformation and undermining trust.
Courts have typically deferred to the political process for handling false
promises, as seen in cases like Williams vs. Police Jury of Concordia
Parish[16]
and City of Farmers Branch vs. Hawnco, Inc.[17]
Legal measures to address deceptive campaign speeches are limited, and there is
no federal law directly regulating election manifestos.
The United Kingdom has a
Parliamentary system where election promises are not legally enforceable.
Despite past commitments to electoral reform, like Labour Party in 1997,
promise for a referendum, political parties often do not fulfil such promises
without legal repercussions. The judiciary avoids interfering in these matters,
viewing them as political rather than legal issues.
The Representation of the People
Act, 1983, addresses false statements about candidates but not false
promises made to voters. Courts have consistently ruled that manifesto pledges
are not binding, and legal accountability for such promises would conflict with
the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers.
Mexico's electoral system is pluralist, with the Mexican General
Congress elected via a mixed system. Significant reforms under President
Ernesto Zedillo led to free and fair elections. The Federal Electoral Institute
(here in after referred as IFE) and the Electoral Tribunal controls and monitors
the election campaign in Mexico. The
Mexican Constitution also provides that the expression which may be derogatory and
insulting to institution, political parties or individual shall not be used.
In Mexico, it is obligatory for the candidates and political parties to
follow the regulations to ensure that their manifestos are legally compliant
and to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The Regulation
mandates:
i.
“Election manifesto must be transparent, accurate and
not misleading,
ii.
The content of manifestos and campaign materials is
regulated to prevent the spread of false information and to ensure fair
competition,
iii.
Reporting of expenditures and sources of funding
related to campaigning,
iv.
The National Electorate Institute oversees compliance
with these regulations and can impose sanctions for violations.” [18]
Bhutan, follows "First Past The
Post" in elections, laws their make it mandatory that political parties
should submit their manifestos to the Election Commission for approval before
public release, ensuring the content of manifesto is in confirmity with
national security and stability. Manifestos cannot exploit religion, ethnicity,
or the King's prerogatives. Laws in Bhutan ensure election promises are
truthful and achievable, holding politicians accountable for their commitments,
unlike many other democracies. It is crucial to strengthen the legal frameworks
and institutional oversight for maintaining democratic integrity and ensuring
that the political parties uphold their promises.
4.
Accountability towards Election Manifestos and
Judicial trend in India
Election manifestos are crucial for
electoral democracy, it serve as a commitment by political parties to their
electorate. In India, manifestos are in use since before independence. However,
unfulfilled promises in manifestos are becoming empty rhetoric, as they pose
challenges to the electorate and the society. A study by the Observer Research
Foundation categorized promises into two segments first is "falsifiable"[19]
(accompanied by specific actions or targets) and second is "unfalsifiable"[20]
(vague and non-accountable). This analysis showed that parties often fail to
fulfill promises, with many not carried forward to subsequent manifestos.
Election manifestos in India are not
legally enforceable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. While manifestos are
central to election campaigns and can be seen as "offers" seeking
voter "acceptance," but they do not form binding contracts. The
Supreme Court have observed that “there is no law making political promises
enforceable.”[21]
Similarly, different High Court reiterated that “no action can be taken for
unfulfilled manifesto promises due to the absence of relevant legislation.”[22]
The doctrine of promissory estoppel, rooted in
the principles of equity from the English legal system, prevents a party from
going back on a promise if another party has relied on it. This principle
applies to both government and public authorities, ensuring that a promise,
intended to create or affect legal relationships, binds the promisor if the
promisee has acted upon it. In India, Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872[23]
(now Section 121, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)[24]
conveys similar principles. However, promissory estoppel cannot enforce
promises that violate the law or public policy, as demonstrated in various
cases.[25] The Supreme Court, in Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills vs. State of U.P.,[26]
emphasized that promissory estoppel is applicable when the promisor's promise
creates an expectation that the promisee acts upon, making the promise binding.
However, this doctrine does not apply to
political manifestos.
The doctrine of legitimate
expectation is a significant principle in public law that aims to protect
individuals when their expectations, arising from administrative actions or
policies, are not met. It exists between a “right” and “no right,” serving as a
remedy for civil consequences resulting from the violation of legitimate
expectations. In public law, unlike private law, the doctrine allows
individuals to seek relief even when their claims are not strictly legal, based
on the premise that public authorities must act fairly and justly.
But the political parties, when issuing
manifestos, are not in government and lack authoritative power. Courts,
including the Delhi High Court in ANZ Grindlays Bank Pie vs.
Commissioner, MCD,[27]
and the Supreme Court of India, have consistently ruled that political
manifestos do not constitute promissory estoppel or legitimate expectations due
to their speculative and aspirational nature.
Under the Representation of People
Act, 1951,[28] two key
points can be analyzed regarding political manifestos: whether false promises
in such manifestos constitute “corrupt practices” under Section 123 and “whether
political parties can be derecognized” under Section 29A for failing to
fulfill those promises.
The Supreme Court in S.
Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu[29]
held that while the idea of considering manifesto promises as corrupt practices
is appealing, it poses practical difficulties. The court emphasized that a
manifesto is a policy statement of a political party, and its enforcement
arises only if the party forms a government. Consequently, the distinguishment
between individual candidates and political parties, allowing parties to make
promises in manifestos without being labelled as corrupt practices. This
observation is subsequently reiterated in other judgements also.[30]
Section 29A[31]
outlines the registration process for political parties but does not provide
for cancellation based on unmet manifesto promises. The Election Commission
cannot deregister a party unless specific conditions are met, such as
registration obtained through fraud or significant amendments to party rules
that violate the Act. The Supreme Court, in Indian National Congress (I) v.
Institute of Social Welfare[32],
ruled that the Commission lacks the authority to review or cancel registrations
based on violations of manifesto promises.
In the light of above referred judgements and
cited provisions it can be observed that, the political parties cannot be held
accountable for false promises made in manifestos under the Representation of
People Act. While voters can express dissatisfaction at the polls, the legal
framework does not allow for the deregistration of parties based on unfulfilled
manifesto commitments, reinforcing the idea that manifestos serve more as
declarations of intent than enforceable contracts.
At present Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay
vs. Union of India[33]
is subjudice before the Supreme Court of
India, addresses the practice of political parties offering election freebies.
This case seeks to reconsider the 2013 S. Subramaniam Balaji ruling[34],
which classified certain election promises, like free televisions, as welfare
measures rather than corrupt practices and undue influence the voters. Critics
argue that this judgment overlooked relevant provisions of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951, and incorrectly suggested that Directive Principles of
State Policy can supersede fundamental rights.
Chief Justice N.V. Ramana acknowledged the complexity of the
issues raised and indicated the need for extensive hearings, ultimately
referring the case to a three-judge bench. After considerable deliberation, the
bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, received input from the
Election Commission, which suggested that parties disclose data regarding
beneficiaries and financial implications of their promises. However, political
parties urged the court to refrain from intervening in electoral politics,
asserting their capability to understand fiscal responsibilities.
The lack of adequate legal statutes
regarding election manifestos has led to judicial hesitance in establishing
guidelines and the Election Commission’s model code of conduct has not been effective.
The Supreme Court has the authority under Article 142 of the Constitution significant
residuary power under Article 142[35]
of the Constitution, to bridge this gap, as it allows to issue decrees and
orders necessary to ensure complete justice in cases before it. This power is
designed to supplement existing laws and address situations inadequately
handled by current legal provisions. The Supreme Court can exercise this power
independently and at its discretion, without needing any conditions precedent.
Despite this, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to apply Article 142 in
matters concerning election manifestos.
5.
Conclusion
Election manifestos are essential in
a democratic system, reflecting the parties' visions and the changing
priorities of voters. They guide citizens in choosing representatives who will
govern on their behalf, embodying the democratic principle that sovereignty
lies with the people. However, the integrity of this process is compromised
when election campaigns involve misleading tactics, false promises, and
manipulation of voters, which undermines the foundation of democracy.
The absence of enforcement mechanisms
against false promises in India allows political parties to make unrealistic
commitments without facing legal consequences. This lack of accountability
means that once elected, politicians often disregard their pledges, leaving
voters feeling cheated. Current legal frameworks do not adequately address the
issue, as promises in manifestos are not legally enforceable under existing
laws.
Political parties and the politicians
should be held accountable for their actions, and legal structures must be
strengthened to ensure they keep their promises. The judiciary should step in
to create guidelines and enforce accountability when Parliament fails to do so.
Courts have previously rejected applying public law principles like promissory
estoppel and the legitimate expectation doctrine to political promises, deeming
them unenforceable.
The Supreme Court of India is urged
to intervene in addressing false promises and the issue of freebies in
elections, as these practices violate the principles of fair elections
enshrined in the Constitution. Chief Justice N.V. Ramana acknowledged the
complexity of these matters, indicating the need for extensive hearings to
determine the scope of judicial intervention.
In light of the discussion, the
following suggestions are proposed to address the issue of accountability
regarding election manifestos of political parties in India:
1.
At present, there is no legal provision for the
accountability and enforcement of promises made in election manifestos. To
ensure accountability, Parliament should enact laws regulating the contents of manifestos.
Even the Supreme Court of India have also observed there is no enactment that
directly governs the contents of the election manifesto.[36]
2. There should be a statutory body
formed to review the election manifesto of political parties. It could be an
independent body or a body formed under the election commission of India. Political
parties shall submit their manifestos for approval before the body and
manifesto could be made public subject to approval of the body. It should be
ensured that they are clear, specific, and free from promises that are
unambiguous, threat to national security or exploit social divisions. Model of
Bhutan and Mexico shall be taken into consideration for this purpose.
3. Political parties should be mandatorily
fulfill the promises made their manifestos. If they fail, they must publish a
record of unfulfilled promises alongside new promises in subsequent manifesto
of next election.
4. The Supreme Court can exercise its
powers to do complete justice under Article 142, but they are escaping from
this duty. Supreme court should exercise this power to issue nationwide
guidelines regarding election manifesto promises, to fill legislative gaps and
ensure justice.
5. Doctrine of promissory estoppel is
not applicable on political parties and their manifestos. In order to attract
the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promisee acting in
reliance of the promise, should have altered his position in reliance of the
promise. Parties making the promise is not the government, but when it comes to
the government after being elected, then to ensure legal accountability of
manifesto, a mechanism to apply promissory estoppel on the manifesto of the
political parties could be explored, while, as per law, the doctrine of
promissory estoppel is not applicable on the government.
6. Although the doctrine of legitimate
expectation is not applicable to political manifestos, a framework should be
established to hold parties accountable for delivering on their promises once
in power. Voters have a legitimate expectation that their representatives will fulfill
their commitments made in the election manifestos.
These measures aim to
strengthen the accountability of political parties in India, ensuring that
election promises are taken seriously and upheld.
[1] ABHISHEK RAJ, LL.M.,student
of IV Sem, Email id : y22219006@dhsgsu.edu.in
, Ph.no. 8969865744 and KRISHNA KUMAR (Assistant Professor), Department
of Law, Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar (M.P.), Email id : kkumar@dhsgsu.edu.in ,Ph.no. 9410499396
[2] S. James Robbins, INTRODUCTION:
DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 21 (1997) 1–13.
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45288975 (last visited at 10 Aug. 2024, 4:19
PM)
[3] S. Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in
Public and Private Life, 184-185 (1979).
[4] Other forms of government can be referred such as:
authoritarianism, aristocracy, autocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and feudalism.
[5] Froomkin, et, al.,
"democracy". Encyclopedia Britannica, (20 Jul. 2024, 7:30 PM) https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy
[6] 2 Brad Martin, Herodotus, Politics and Athenian
Democracy, 46-52 Xavier Jour. Of Poitics, (2011).
[7] Political Theory II, Rajiv Gandhi
University, Arunachal Pradesh, (2021), (Jul.29,
2024, 12:19 PM) https://rgu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BAPOL202.pdf.
[8] Mohammad
Mohabbat Khan, Democracy and Good Governance in bangladesh: Are They Compatible? 5 Sage
Journal, (Jul.29, 2024, 12:19 PM)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0976399613518855?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.8.
[10] Id.
[11] Merriam Webster, (Jul. 24, 2024,
10:36 PM) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifesto.
[12] Richard Rose (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Election 161 (MacMillan Reference Ltd., London, 2000).
[13] Bryan A. Garner (ed.), Black’s Law
Dictionary, 1048 (USA: Thomson Reuters Business, 9th ed. 2009).
[14] Ramesh
Tiwari, Political Parties, Election manifesto of the political parties and
Elections in India, 1909-2014 (Routledge India, 2020).
[15] Nirmalya Chaudhari, Right not to
be misled: Identifying a constitutional basis to fix accountability for
election promises, 10 IJCL (2021).
[17] 435 S.W. 2d 288 (Tex. Civ.
App.1968)
[18] Lauren TerMaat, Mexico’s National Electorate Institute-Explainer,
October 24, 2023, (Jul. 27, 2024, 11:14 PM) https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/mexicos-national-electoral-institute-explainer.
[19] Ovee Karwa et al., Manifestos as a
Tool for Accountability: A Content Analysis of the 2004-2019 UPA and NDA Poll
Manifestos, Observer research Foundation, 6-8 (Jul. 28, 2024,03:32 PM), https://www.orfonline.org/research/manifestos-as-a-tool-for-accountability-a-content-analysis-of-the-2004-2019-upa-and-nda-poll-manifestos.
[20] Id.
[21] Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union
of India, 2014 SCC Online Del.4771 (India).
[22] Vivek Kumar Mishra vs. Union of
India, 2019 (7) ADJ 310 (India).
[23] The
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[24] The
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, No. 46, Act of Parliament, 2023 (India).
[25] Thakur Amar Singh Ji vs. State of
Rajasthan. (1955) 2 SCR 303 (India).
[26] AIR 1979 SC 621 (India).
[27] 1995 (34) DRJ 492 (India).
[28] Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951
(India).
[29] (2013) 9 SCC 659.
[30] V. P. Ammavasai vs Chief Election
Commissioner, 2019 SCC Online Mad 5623 (India).
[31] Supra note 26.
[32] (2002) 5 SCC 685
[33] Live Law (SC) 717
[35] CONST. INDIA, art 142.
[36]
S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. State of Tamilnadu and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 659
(India).