'Once people reject you...': SC junks Prashant Kishor party's plea
What's the story
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by Prashant Kishor's party, Jan Suraaj Party. The party had alleged that a state welfare scheme was misused to influence voters ahead of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections and sought fresh polls. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the party for seeking judicial relief after its electoral defeat and suggested that the high court was a more appropriate forum.
Legal proceedings
'Once people reject you...'
The court questioned the party's motives, inquiring about the number of votes they received and why they were seeking relief through the judicial system. The bench remarked, "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...want the election...declared null and void," the court said. Kishor's party had contested 242 of the 243 Assembly seats but didn't win even one.
Allegations detailed
Allegations of scheme misuse for voter influence
The party alleged that the Nitish Kumar-led Bihar government misused the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana scheme to influence voters. The scheme, which promised ₹10,000 to one woman per family for self-employment, was launched just before the elections. They claimed that eligibility was linked to membership in JEEVIKA, a network of women's self-help groups, and that new beneficiaries were added after the election schedule was announced, as women not already part of JEEVIKA were allowed to enroll to receive the benefit.
Election interference
Party contends this deprived them of a level playing field
The party said that while around one crore women were already linked with JEEVIKA before the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) went into effect, newspaper reports later revealed that 1.56 crore women received payments. This meant that new beneficiaries were added and paid after the election date was announced and the MCC was in effect. The petition claimed that giving cash benefits during this time constituted "corrupt practices" designed to unduly influence voters in favor of the ruling government.
Funding issues
Petition highlights concerns over scheme funding
The petition also raised concerns over how the scheme was funded, alleging it was approved without legislative sanction and involved withdrawals from the State's Contingency Fund, which violated Article 267 of the Constitution. The party contended that such funding practices vitiated the election process, violating the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21, and 324. The appeal also cited the SC's previous emphasis on free and fair elections as basic feature of the Constitution.