S. SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI -r v. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

E SLP CC) No. 21455 of 2008

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Madurai Bench of the i F Madras High Court in Writ Petition lC) Nos. 9013 of 2006 and 1071 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant herein.

3. Brief Facts: G (a) The case relates to distribution of free gifts by the >-- "'. political parties (popularly known as 'freebies'). The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)- Respondent No. 8 herein, while releasing the election manifesto for the Assembly Elections 2006, announced a Scheme of free distribution of Colour 'H

p. 683 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] Television Sets (CTVs) to each and every household which did not possess the same, if the said party/its alliance were elected to power. The Party justified the decision of distribution of free CTVs for the purpose of providing recreation and general knowledge to the household women, more particularly, those living in the rural areas. In pursuance of the same, follow up actions by way of enlisting the households which did not have

,. a CTV set and door to door identification and distribution of application forms were initiated.

- (b) This Scheme was challenged by one S. Subramaniam Balaji-the appellant herein, by way of filing writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the expenditure to be incurred by the State Government for its implementation out of the State c

Exchequer is unauthorized, impermissible and ultra vires the Constitutional mandates. The appellant herein filed a complaint dated 24.04.2006 to the Election Commission of India seeking D initiation of action in respect of the said promise under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (in short 'the RP Act'). The appellant herein also forwarded the complaint to the Chief Election Officer, Tamil Nadu. E (c) The DMK and its political allies emerged victorious in the State Assembly Election held in the month of May, 2006. In pursuit of fulfilling the promise made in the election manifesto, } a policy decision was taken by the then government to provide one 14" CTV to all eligible families in the State. It was further decided by the Government to implement the Scheme in a phased manner and a provision of Rs. 750 crores was made in the budget for implementing the same. A Committee was constituted, headed by the then Chief Minister and eight other .. ~ legislative members of various political parties, in order to ensure transparency in the matter of implementation of the Scheme.

(d) For implementing the first phase of the Scheme, the work of procurement of around 30,000 CTVs was entrusted to Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (ELCOT), a State H

p. 684 Copy page pinpoint

A owned Corporation. The first phase of the Scheme was implemented on 15/17th September, 2006 by distributing around 30,000 CTVs to the identified families in all the districts of the State of Tamil Nadu.

(e) Being aggrieved by the implementation of the Scheme, B the appellant herein filed another complaint to the Chief Secretary and the Revenue Secretary pointing out the unconstitutionality of the Scheme. He also preferred Writ Petition being Nos. 9013 of 2006 and 1071 of 2007 before the ~

c Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras alleging the Scheme a corrupt practice to woo the gullible electorates with an eye on the vote bank. By order dated 25.06.2007, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the appellant - herein holding that the action of the Government in distributing free CTVs cannot be branded as a waste of exchequer. Being D aggrieved, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

Transferred Case (Cl No. 112 of 2011

(f) In the month of February 2011, pursuant to the elections to the Tamil Nadu State Assembly, the ruling party (DMK) announced its manifesto with a volley of free gifts. In the same manner, the. opposite party-All India Anna Dravidn Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and its alliance also announced its election manifesto with free gifts to equalize the gifts offered by the DMK Party and promised to distribute free of cost the following items, viz., grinders, mixies, electric fans, laptop computers, 4 gms gold thalis, Rs. 50,000/- cash for women's marriage, green houses, 20 kgs. rice to all ration card holders even to those above the poverty line and free cattle and sheep, if the said party/its alliance were elected to power during the >- - Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections 2011.

(g) The very same Scheme was also challenged by the appellant herein on the ground that such promises by the parties are unauthorized, impermissible and ultra vires the

p. 685 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] Constitutional mandates. The appellant herein also filed a A complaint dated 29.03.2011 to the Election Commission of India seeking initiation of action in respect of the said Scheme under Section 123 of the RP Act.

(h) The AIADMK and its political allies won the State 8 Assembly Elections held in 2011. In order to fulfill the promise made in the election manifesto, a policy decision was taken by the then government to distribute the gifts and, pursuant to the same, tenders were floated by the Civil Supplies Department for mixies, grinders, fans etc., as well as by C ELCOT for lap top computers.

(i) On 06.06.2011, the appellant herein filed another complaint to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therein respectively) pointing out the unconstitutionality of tjle D Scheme and transfer of consolidated funds of the State for the same. In the meanwhile, the appellant herein preferred a Writ Petition being No. 17122 of 2011 before the High Court of Madras alleging the Scheme a corrupt practice and to restrain the government from in any way proceeding with the procurement, placement of tenders or making free distributions under various Schemes introduced to woo the voters. In view of the pendency of SLP (C) No. 21455 of 2008 in this Court relating to the similar issue, the appellant preferred a Transfer Petition (C) No. 947 of 2011 before this Court praying for the transfer of the said writ petition. By order dated 16.09.2011, this Court allowed the said petition and the same has been numbered as T.C No. 112 of 2011 and tagged with the abovesaid appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellant/petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India. H

p. 686 Copy page pinpoint

A 5. Prayer/Relief Sought For:

(a) When DMK started distribution of CTVs, the appellant/ petitioner herein approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai, by way of filing Writ Petition (C) No. 9013 of 2006 with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to · 8 forbear the respondents therein from incurring any expenditure out of the public exchequer for the purchase and distribution of colour Televisions within the State of Tamil Nadu.

(b) After 5 years, when AIADMK elected to power, pursuant to their election manifesto, they started distributing various freebies, which was also challenged by the very same person - the appellant/petitioner herein by filing a writ petition being No. 17122 of 2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying for issuance of a writ to declare the free distribution of (i) grinders (ii) mixies (iii) electric fans (iv) laptop computers (v) 4 gm. gold thalis (vi) free green houses (vii) free 20 kgs. rice to all ration card holders even to those above the poverty line and (viii) free cattle and sheep ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 41, 162, 266(3) and 282 of the E Constitution of India and Section 123(1) of the RP Act.

Contentions by the Appellant:

6. Mr. Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellant i submitted that a "gift", "offer~ or "promise" by a candidate or F his agent, to induce an elector to vote in his favour would amount to "bribery" under Section 123 of the RP Act. He further pointed out that to couch this offer/promise to give away a gift whose Wbrth is estimable in money and that too from the consolidated fund of the State under the head "promise of publication" or >- , G "public policy" or "public good" is to defeat the purposes of the above Section viz., Section 123(1) of the RP Act. While elaborating his submissions, Mr. Datar raised his objections under the following heads:

(I) Article 282 of the Constitution of India only permits H

p. 687 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] defraying of funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State for A "public purpose";

(II) The distributions made by the respondent-State is violative.of Article 14 since there is no reasonable classification;

(Ill) Promises of free distribution of non-essential B commodities in an election manifesto amounts to electoral bribe under Section 123 of the RP Act;

(IV) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed; c and

(V) Safeguards must be built into schemes to ensure that the distribution is made for a public purpose and is not misused. D (I) Article 282 of the Constitution of India only permits defraying of funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State for "public purpose".

7. Regarding the first contention relating to Article 282 of the Constitution of India which only permits use of monies out of the Consolidated Fund of the State for public purpose, it is useful to refer the said Article which reads as under:

"282. Expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenue - The Union or a State may make any grants for any public purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament or the

- Legislature of the State, as the case may be, may make laws." ' _..._ G

8. It is pointed out by Mr. Datar that under Article 266(3) of the Constitution, the monies out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State can only be appropriated in accordance with law and for the purposes and in the manner provided by the Constitution. Under Article 162, H

p. 688 Copy page pinpoint

A the extent of the executive power of the State is limited to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has the power to make laws. Likewise, under Article 282, the Union or the States may make grants for "any public purpose", even if such public purpose is not one with respect to which1he State s or the Union may make laws. By referring these Articles, Mr. Datar submitted that monies out of the Consolidated Fund of the State can only be appropriated for the execution of laws made by the State, or for any other "public purpose".

9. It is further pointed out that the State raises funds through taxation which can be used by the State only to discharge its constitutional functions. Taxpayers' contribution cannot be used to fund State largesse. While the taxpayer has no right to demand a quid pro quo benefit for the taxes paid, he has a right to expect that the taxes paid will not be gifted to other persons without general public benefit. The main intention of an act done for a public purpose must be the public, and that the act would remotely, or in a collateral manner, benefit the local public is not relevant at all.

E 10. According to Mr. Datar, the most important constitutional mandate is that a "public purpose" cannot be the one that results in the creation of private assets. The exceptions that can be made to this overarching principle are the distributions that fulfill an essential need such as food, clothing, shelter, health or education. Even if certain distributions, such as the distribution of televisions might have some public benefit, it would not amount to public purpose since the dominant purpose of such a distribution is only the creation of private assets. Where the purposes of the expenditure are partly public and partly private, the Courts in the US have held that the entire act must fail. (vide Coates vs. Campbell and Others, 37 Minn. 498).

11. While statutory authorities can confer social or economic benefits on particular sections of the community, their power is limited by the principle that such benefits must not be

S. SUBRAMANIAM BA~JI v GOVERNMENT OF 689 TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] ,.. excessive or unreasonable. As Lord Atkinson stated in Roberts A vs. Hopwood & Ors. 1925 AC 578, the State cannot act in furtherance of "eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy". In view of the above, a reference was also made to Bromley London Borough Council, London vs. Greater Council & Anr. 1982 (2) WLR 62 and R vs. Secretary of State for Foreign B Affairs (1995) 1 All ER 611.

12. In this context, it is pointed out that Article 41 of the >- Constitution of India states that the State, "within its economic capacity and development" can make effective provision for r securing "public assistance" in certain special cases. Article c 39(b) states that the State shall endeavour to ensure that the "material resources" of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the "common good". Both these articles imply that the goal of the Constitution, as evidenced by these Directive Principles, is to ensure that the State distributes its D resources to secure "public assistance" and "common good", and must not create private assets.

13. It is also pointed out that the Constitutions of 17 States of the US explicitly prohibit the making of private gifts by the E Government, and it is recognized even elsewhere in the US that the public funds cannot be used to make gifts to private persons.

14. It is further stated that the spending on free distribution must be weighed against the public benefits that ensue from it F and only if the public benefits outweigh the same, can the spending be classified as being for a public purpose. Mr. Datar asserted that when the literacy rate in the State of Tamil Nadu is around 73% and there are 234 habitations across the State with no school access whatsoever, distribution of free consumer -~ G goods to the people having ration cards cannot be justified as "public purpose".

15. In addition to CTVs by the previous Government, the following free distributions have been promised by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Budget Speech for the year H

690 SUPREME COURT REP9RTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 2011-2012: "1. 60,000 green houses, at a cost of Rs.1.8 lakhs per house, totally amounting to Rs.1080 crores. The green houses are being supplied to persons below the poverty line residing in rural areas. However, they are being B supplied to persons who already own 300 sq. ft. of land.

Comment by the appellant: ~ The State is creating private assets through this c distribution, when it can, instead build houses owned by the State which can be occupied by eligible persons.

2. 4 gms of gold for poor girls for thali, plus Rs.50000 cash for wedding purposes, totally amounting to Rs.514 crores. D Comment by the appellant: .

The State can achieve the same end of subsidizing marriages by providing institutions such as mandaps and E temples that can be used for marriage. There are no safeguards in any scheme proposed by the State to ensure that Rs.50,000 given in cash to the eligible beneficiaries will be used for the marriage, and not diverted for other purposes.

F 3. Free mixies, grinders and fans for 25 lakh families, totally amounting to Rs.1250 crores.

Comment by the appellant: ).._ _,... The reasons given by the State, of alleviating women of G "domestic drudgery" are frivolous and do not amount to a "public purpose". Mixies, grinders and fans are luxuries and cannot be freely distributed by the Government. The distribution is being made to a large section of persons without even ascertaining whether the persons already own H

p. 691 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] ,.,. these goods and whether they require state assistance to A acquire these goods.

4. 9.12 lakh laptops to all class XII students in Tamil Nadu amounting to Rs. 912 crores.

Comment by the appellant: b

No "public purpose" is served by such distribution. The State is duty bourid to create computer labs in schools and }- colleges and not distribute such expensive articles as gifts. Classification of students eligible for the laptops suffers c " from overclassification, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification is also violative of Article 14 as it omitted certain categories of students.

5. Free cattle to poor families in certain rural areas, Rs.56 crores. Distribution of milch cows is being done, D according to the State's Government Order, to "boost the productivity of milk in the State."

Comment by the appellant: E It is stated that the State does run a diary, and the constitutionally valid method to boost milk production is to spend on these institutions and not to create private assets

' under these Government Orders.

6. Free ri.ce to 1.83 crore families under the PDS system, amounting to Rs.4500 crores. F

Comment by the appellant:

- ~ Rice is already being distributed in the State at Rs.2 per kilo. Under this scheme, rice is being distributed free of cost, as a pure populist measure. As per the State's own G

submissions, rice is priced at Rs.2 under the Anthyodaya Anna Yojana, which is being followed throughout the country. H

p. 692 Copy page pinpoint

A 16. Mr. Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Constitution of India does not permit free distribution of goods such as colour televisions, mixies, grinders, laptops since these are consumer goods and only benefit the persons to whom they are distributed and not the 8 public at large. Public spending on these goods to the tune of Rs.9000 crores far outweighs any public benefit that might arise from such distributions. When the same ends can be efficiently -achieved without the creation of private assets, such as the creation of Community Computer Centers instead of distributing laptops, or setting up of Community Televisions at the Panchayat level resorting to make large scale free distribution, it clearly violate Articles 162, 266(3) and 282 of the Constitution. It is further pointed out that the fact that CTVs and other schemes of previous Government were cancelled by the present Government shows that these were not for "public purpose" but only to serve the political objectives of a particular party.

II. The distributions made by the respondent fall foul of Article 14 since there is no reasonable classification

17. The right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution requires that the State must make a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, and such classification must have a nexus with the object of the law. In making free distributions, the State, therefore, must show that it has identified the class of persons to whom such distributions are sought to be made using intelligible differentia, and that such differentia has a rational nexus with the object of the distribution. As held in Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. G & Anr. 2003 (5) sec 437, Article 14 applies to matters of government policy and such policy or action would be unconstitutional if it fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness.

18. This Court, in K. T. Moopil Nair vs. State of Kera/a AIR )-

H 1961 SC 552, held that a statute can offend Article 14 if it

p. 693 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] groups together persons who are dissimilar. In that case, a flat tax of Rs. 2 per acre was levied on land without ascertaining the income earning potential of such land, which was struck down as unconstitutional.

19. In the case on hand, the colour televisions, mixies and grinders were being distributed to all persons having ration card. While the distribution of these goods is supposedly being made to help people who cannot afford these items, the State >-- has not made any attempt to find out if such persons already own a colour television, a mixie or a grinder. Further, the differentia of a ration card has no rational nexus with the object c of free distribution of the items since a ration card does not indicate the income of the family or whether they already own these goods.

20. Similarly, in another Scheme, the State has promised to distribute free laptops to all the students studying in the State Board. Again, this classification is arbitrary since there are numerous similarly placed students in Central Board schools who were being excluded by this Scheme. The Scheme also excludes commerce, law and medical college students and violates Article 14 by not providing intelligible differentia having a nexus with such distribution.

-r Ill. Promises of free distribution of non-essential commodities in election manifesto amounts to an electoral bribe under Section 123 of the RP Act. F

21. Under Section 123(1 )(A) of the RP Act, any "gift, offer or promise" by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the object of inducing a person to vote at an election - "'"" amounts to "bribery", which is a "corrupt practice" under the said section. The key element in this section is that the voter G

must be influenced to vote in a particular manner. It has been held in Richardson-Garnder vs. Ekykn, (1869) 19 LT 613 that the making of charitable gifts on an extensive scale would lead to an inference that this was made to influenCti. voters. H-·

694 SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. '

A 22. Mr. Datar pointed out that the plea that promises in the · manifesto do not amount to bribery is completely baseless and finds no support in the plain words of the statute or in decided case laws. The statute very clearly includes a "promise" within its ambit, and an unconstitutional promise clearly falls foul of B the language of Section 123 of the RP Act. Such 'freebies' are in form part of an election manifesto but in substance is a bribe or inducement under section 123. If such practices are permitted, then the manifesto does indirectly what a candidate· cannot do directly. ~ c 23. It is further pointed ·out that the promise of distribution was made at the time of.elections and not after, and instead o_f focusing ori basic necessities, it was on free distributions which indicates that the promise of free colour televisions, grinders, mixies, laptops, gold etc., was only made as an electoral bribe to induce voters.

24. Mr. Datar further pointed out that the intent of Section 123 of the RP ACt is to ensure that no candidate violates the level playing field between the candidates. Therefore, whether such promises are made by the political party or by the candidate himself is irrelevant. The manifesto, where such illegal promises are made, implore the voters to vote for that particular party.

IV. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has i- F a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed. '

25. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is a constitutional functionary appointed under Article 148 of the G Constitution. His main role is to audit the income and expenditure of the Government, Government bodies and state- run corporations. The extent of his duties is listed out in the . Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers etc.) Act,

1971. Section 13 of this Act states that the CAG shall audit all H the expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India, and of

p. 695 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU {P. SATHASIVAM, J.] )' each State, and ascertain whether the moneys so spent were A .. "legally available for and applicable to the seNice of purpose to which they have been applied or charged."

26. Section 15 of the Act states that where grants _and, loans have been given for any specific purpose to any authority s· or body other than a foreign state or an international organization, the CAG has the duty to scrutinize the procedure by which the loan or grant has been made.

27. The language of the provision suggests that the role of CAG is limited to review. However, this would rob the CAG c of the power to ensure that large-scale unauthorized spending of public funds, such as these free distributions, does not take place. The Section must be given purposive interpretation that would f1..1rther its intent to ensure that the government's spending is only on purposes that are legally allowable. The Chancery D Division has held in Kingston Cotton Mills Co. Re [1896] 2 Ch 279 that an auditor is a "watchdog". To perform his· role as a watchdog, the CAG must be vigilant, watch for any large-scale ·illegal expenditures, and act upon them immediately. E V .. Safeguards must be built into schemes t.o ensure that the distribution is made for a public purpose, and is not misused. ~~

28. The Member5 of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) was challenged before this Court in Bhim F Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 538 wherein the Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the scheme .on the grounds that there were three levels of safeguards built into the scheme to ensure that the funds given to the Members of . '""" Parliament would not be misused. This Court held as under: G "8) The court can strike down a law or scheme only on the basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on the basis . of its viability. When a regime of accountability is availabfe

p. 696 Copy page pinpoint

' A within the Scheme, it is not proper for the Court to strike it --( down, unless it violates any constitutional principle. "' 9) In the present Scheme, an accountability regime has been provided. Efforts must be made to make the regime more robust, but in its current form, cannot be struck down B as unconstitutional."

29. The MPLAD Scheme clearly had prohibitions against spending on the creation of private assets and to make loans. ~ It is pointed out that there is no scheme of accountability in the c above mentioned promises for free distributions, hence, learned senior counsel prayed for necessary guidelines for proper utilization of public funds.

Contentions by the Respondents: D Contentions of the State of Tamil Nadu:

30. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu while disputing the above claim submitted that the freebies, as promised in the E election manifesto, would not come under the head "corrupt practices" and "electoral offences" in terms of the RP Act. He further submitted that in view of the mandates in the Directives Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution, it is incumbent on the State Government to promote the welfare of i- F the people, who are below the poverty line or unable to come up without their support. In any event, according to learned senior counsel, for every promise formulated in the form of election manifesto, after coming to power, the same were being implemented by framing various schemes/guidelines/eligibility criteria etc. as well as with the approval of legislature. Thus, it >- - cannot be construed as a waste of public money or prohibited by any Statute or Scheme.

31. While elaborating his submissions, Mr. Shekhar Naphade replied for the contentions made by the appellant under the following heads:

p. 697 Copy page pinpoint

TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.) ~ (I) Political Parties are not State, therefore, not amenable A to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or ' writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution ·of India or any other provisions of the Constitution. For corrupt practices, tne remedy is Election Petition. B

(II) Non-application of Vishaka principle and the difficulties in implementing the directions, if any, that may be issued ~ by this Court. --·-~.

·!...-- (Ill) Promises of political parties do not constitute a corrupt c practice.

(IV) The Schemes under challenge operate within the parameters of public purpose and Article 14 of the Constitution has no role to play. D (I) Political Parties are not State, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or any other provisions of the E Constitution. For corrupt practices, the remedy is an Election Petition.

32. Learned senior counsel submitted that a political party is not a statutory Corporation. Similarly, a political party is also not a Government. It is also not an instrumentality or agency of the State. None of the parameters laid down by several judgments of this court for identifying an agency or instrumentality of the State apply to a political party and, therefore, no political party can be considered as a State or any agency or instrumentality of the State, hence, no writ can lie against a political party. [vide Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 733. ~. ! -- - I

33. Further, learned senior counsel put forth that it ~ the H .

p. 698 Copy page pinpoint

A claim of the appellant that the promises like giving colour TVs, mixer-grinders, laptops etc. constitute a corrupt practice and, therefore, must vitiate an election. If the promise of the above nature is a corrupt practice, then the only remedy for the appellanf is to file an Election Petition under Section 80, BOA s read with other provisions of the RP Act. Under Section 81, such an Election Petition must be filed within 45 days from the date of the election .. In the petition, the appellant must set out clearly and specifically the· corrupt practice that he complains -i. of and also set out as to how.,the returned candidate or his c agent has committed the same or has connived at the same. An election Petition is to be. tried on evidence and therefore, the writ petition is not a remedy.

(II) Non-application of Vishaka principle and the difficulties in implementing the directions; if any, that may be issued by this Court.

34. It was submitted that Entry 72 of List-I of the Vllth Schedule to the Constilution of India deals with election to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. In exercise of this power, the Parliament has enacted the RP Act. The Act, as originally enacted, did not contain any provision relating to corrupt practice as contained in Section 123. Se9tion 123 . defines and enumerates "corrupt practices" exhaustively. Section 123 came as a result of recommendations of the F Select Committee of the Parliament on the basis of whiGh the . said Act was amended by substituting Chapter 1 in Part Vil of the Act by Act No. 27 of 1956. The Legislature has dealt with the subject of corrupt practice and it is not a case of legislative vacuum. The field of corrupt practice Is covered by the G provisions of the said Act. Once the Legislature has dealt with ~- a particular topic, then the Vishakha principle (Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others ( 1997) 6 SCC 241) has no applicability. This Court, in Vishaka (supra) and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 sec 454 and other cases has dearly held that if on H

p. 700 Copy page pinpoint