SC snippets

In a decision intended to maintain a level playing field in elections, Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to consult all political parties as soon as possible to frame guidelines so that they do not announce freebies in their manifestos to lure voters.
“A separate head for guidelines for election manifesto released by a political party can also be included in the model code of conduct for the guidance of political parties and candidates,” the bench said.
The court felt a separate legislation could help end the widely prevalent practice of political parties attempting to lure particular sections of society with freebies ahead of polls and then bankrolling the promises at taxpayers’ cost after coming to power.
A bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, however, rejected pleas against Tamil Nadu’s DMK and AIADMK for promising free colour TVs and mixer-grinders, saying manifesto pledges by political parties are not punishable as they do not amount to corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
In the 2006 Tamil Nadu assembly elections, DMK promised free colour TVs which cost Rs 750 crore to the exchequer after the party won. AIADMK outdid the DMK in 2011 by promising mixers, grinders, fans, laptops and 4 gram gold talis (mangalsutra) and much more.
The apex court’s directions, however, raised the hackles of political parties who said they had a right to project their policies and economic and political priorities.

The Supreme Court ruled that ministers and elected representatives occupying government bungalows without authorization would face breach of privilege proceedings in Parliament. Setting an example, the bench said judges must vacate their residences within a month of retirement. MPs would get a three-month notice following which they will have their pension docked or be forcibly evicted.

The Supreme Court has decided to revisit the question whether the mother tongue or regional language could be imposed by a state as the medium of instruction in primary schools.
A bench comprising Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred this question to a five-judge constitution bench despite being aware that the SC had in December 1993 upheld the Karnataka government’s decision to make Kannada mandatory for all primary school students.
The bench said the “vital question involved in this petition has far-reaching significance on the development of children”. “The primary school years of a child... moulds the thinking process and tutors on the communication skills,” it said. The bench framed five questions:
 
• What does mother tongue mean? If it refers to the language in which the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the same?  
• Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?  
• Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect fundamental rights?  
• Whether governmen trecognized schools are inclusive of both government-aided schools and private and unaided schools?  
• Whether the state can by virtue of Article 350A of the Constitution compel linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue as medium