Delhi HC Declines To Entertain PIL Against Cash-Based Schemes By Political Parties, Suggests Approaching Apex Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired judge Justice S.N. Dhingra, which challenged the cash-oriented schemes announced by political parties during the Delhi Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the Supreme Court is already addressing similar concerns regarding the announcement of freebies by political parties during elections. Given this, the bench stated that conducting parallel hearings in both courts would be inappropriate. However, the court granted Justice Dhingra the liberty to approach the Supreme Court for redressal of his grievances.

Justice Dhingra’s petition argued that the cash-oriented schemes proposed by various political parties were unconstitutional and amounted to election manipulation. He contended that such schemes unfairly influence voters and undermine the democratic process, affecting the fairness of elections.

The PIL also sought the Election Commission of India’s intervention, requesting that it direct political parties—including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Indian National Congress (INC), and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)—to stop collecting voters’ personal and electoral data under false pretenses. Additionally, it urged the court to prevent these parties from sharing or using the collected data with third parties.

Filed through Advocates Amit Grover, Siddhartha Borgohain, and Harshvardhan Sharma, the petition accused the political parties of engaging in corrupt and illegal practices in connection with the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections. It asserted that these activities violated electoral laws and infringed on fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the electoral process.

The plea further highlighted that political parties benefit from government-allocated offices in Parliament and State Assemblies, as well as land in the National Capital at nominal rates. Given their critical role in the democratic system, the petition argued that political parties act as intermediaries between the government and public opinion and should therefore be considered as instrumentalities of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution.

While the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL, the broader debate over election freebies, voter privacy, and the role of political parties in governance is expected to continue, particularly in the Supreme Court.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International