Karnataka High Court To Hear Petition To Disqualify CM Siddaramaiah Today

The petition claims that Siddaramaiah violated the Constitution as well as the regulations and principles outlined in the Representation of the People Act.

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

Source : PTI

The Karnataka High Court will hear a case challenging Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's election to the Assembly from the Varuna constituency on July 28, news agency PTI reported. The petition accuses the Congress party's election programme, which offered five "guarantees," of "corrupt practises amounting to bribery and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act." The petition claims that Siddaramaiah violated the Constitution as well as the regulations and principles outlined in the Representation of the People Act.

“The said guarantees are in the nature of offer and promises made by the candidate and by the Indian National Congress party. This was done with the consent of the respondent (Siddaramaiah). They are in the form of gratification to the electorate of Varuna Constituency and with the object of directly inducing the electorate to vote for the Congress party candidate namely the respondent. The consideration was the vote in favour of the Respondent as a gratification with the motive and reward," the petition was quoted by PTI in its report. 

The election petition was submitted by K M Shankara, a private individual from the constituency, before the single-judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav.

The petition claimed that Siddaramaiah "engaged in corrupt practise during the election period" during the recently ended Assembly Elections. Senior counsel Pramila Nesargi, representing the petitioner, said the court that everyone who solicited votes in the name of the five assurances violated the model code of conduct, but only Siddaramaiah was appointed a respondent as an example.

“All the persons’ names which find a place in the manifesto are all jointly and severally responsible for the corrupt practice of 123(1) and 123(2) of the RP Act,” the petition reads.