Today, On 6th February, Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea by Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party alleging pre-poll cash inducements in the Bihar elections. The Bench remarked, “Once People Reject You, You Use The Judicial Forum To Get Relief.”
The Supreme Court heard the petition filed by the Jan Suraaj Party led by strategist-turned-politician Prashant Kishor, in which the party has alleged that a major state welfare scheme was misused to influence voters ahead of the 2025 Assembly Elections.
The matter came up before a Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the Jan Suraaj Party, started his submissions by saying,
“My submission is that the election petition cannot be rejected on the assumption that it challenges the entire election process as a whole.”
The Bench responded with the Chief Justice remarking,
“That is not the case here. This is a single, composite election petition, Mr. Singh.”
The Court remarked,
“How many votes did you get ? Once people reject you, you use the judicial forum to get relief! Somebody should have challenged the scheme itself then. That is not the prayer before us. You just want the election to be declared null and void,”
Continuing his argument, Senior Advocate Singh told the Court,
“The concern is not whether Your Lordships may eventually choose to issue notice on all the prayers or restrict notice to only some of them. That aspect is entirely within the Court’s discretion and is not the controversy before us.”
He added that the issue raised in the petition dealt with the fairness of the electoral playing field and had nothing to do with the Model Code of Conduct being imposed for the entire state.
Senior Advocate Singh then explained the seriousness of the situation by stating,
“But in a fiscal deficit state, a state which is one of the most indebted states in the country within the first five or six most indebted states in the country, to pay 15,600 crores in an immediate pre-election dole and adding to the future debt of the state with no budgetary support, with no budgetary allocation, etc.”
Justice Bagchi intervened to draw a distinction, saying,
“There is a difference between a legal constitutional question and the wisdom of the government within pursuing a fiscal economic policy.”
Singh responded,
“Precisely what your Lordships have said, if there is no rational policy, it’s not about people to vote out their government. No, this is not a policy where… It’s not a policy. Let me just make the point. Just see first Pentalapati for a moment.”
The Chief Justice then reminded counsel about legal procedure, saying,
“Now, Mr. Singh, we can’t issue notice like this. There has to be some prescribed format of entertaining a petition.”
He also questioned the choice of forum by asking,
“First of all, you tell us what is the logic for not going to the High Court by the bill. If it pertains to a state where the High Court is the most convenient platform, there they can call for the record, they can verify anything, they can take a view.”
Senior Advocate Singh replied by pointing to the magnitude of the scheme and said,
“It is given to 1.56 crore women with no prior scrutiny. Just see the dates for a moment. If my Lord ultimately says go to the High Court, we will go to the High Court. But just see for a moment, just see how grave it is. Not on 29th August 2025, a Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana is announced.”
He added that the announcement included,
“10,000 each today, another 2 lakhs to be given after assessment. Assessment. The first 10,000 without any assessment.”
He stressed that the matter was beyond political rivalry and dealt with the constitutional integrity of elections, saying,
“This is not about political popularity or post-election score-settling. The issue is structural and constitutional. It concerns the distortion of the electoral process through fiscally irresponsible, pre-election cash transfers.”
By the end of the hearing, the Bench indicated that the petitioner may consider withdrawing the current petition and approach the appropriate forum.
The Court stated,
“In light of these observations, withdraw the present petition, to approach the High Court or to file an appropriate substituted petition. We do not wish to foreclose any jurisdiction. Similar matters have already seen notice issued, including orders dated 23 January, and listings in April.”
The petitioner ultimately decided to withdraw the plea. The petition highlighted the Supreme Court’s previous focus on the importance of free and fair elections as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, contending that welfare initiatives should not be exploited as means to gain electoral benefits.
The petition was submitted by advocate Aditya Singh.
ALSO READ: Bihar Legislative Council || Supreme Court Prohibits Bypoll Results Announcement
Earlier, Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party approached the Supreme Court, contesting the Bihar Assembly Elections of 2025 and requesting new elections in the state.
In the previous election, the BJP-led NDA maintained its hold on power, securing 202 out of 243 seats, while the INDIA bloc managed to win only 35, which included six seats for the Congress.
The Jan Suraaj Party, on the other hand, did not win any seats, with most of its candidates failing to secure their deposits.
In its petition, the party has accused the Bihar government of breaching the Model Code by transferring Rs 10,000 to women under the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana after the election schedule was announced.
The party has requested the election commission to act under Article 324 of the Constitution (which relates to the supervision, direction, and control of the electoral rolls and elections) and Section 123 of theRepresentation of People Act regarding the direct monetary transfers to women voters in the state.
The Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana aims to provide an initial financial grant of Rs 10,000 to women for establishing small businesses and fostering self-employment and women’s empowerment throughout the state.
Section 123 lists all actions that are considered “corrupt practices” during elections. If a candidate or their agent does any of these, the election can be declared void, and they may face disqualification.