MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by an Advocate, as a Public Interest Litigation, contending:-

(2.) The petition though was filed, as aforesaid, in March, 2014 but was on the request of the petitioner adjourned from time to time for admission purposes. The counsels for the respondents appear on advance notice. We heard the petitioner appearing in person as well as the learned ASG for the purpose of admission and reserved order.

(3.) We, at the outset, invited attention of the petitioner appearing in person to the judgment of Justice R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) of this Court in ANZ Grindlays Bank Pie Vs. Commissioner, MCD, 1995 2 AD(Del) 573 where, dealing with an argument of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations on the basis of election manifesto, it was held that election manifesto of a political party howsoever boldly and widely promulgated and publicised, can never constitute promissory estoppel or provide foundation for legitimate expectations. It was further held that it is common knowledge that political parties hold out high promises to the voters expecting to be returned to power but it is not necessary that they must be voted in by the electorate; the political parties may commit to the voters that they would enact or repeal certain laws but they may not succeed in doing so for reasons more than one and they know well this truth while making such promises and the electorate to which such promises are made also knows it. It was further held that neither the plea of promissory estoppel nor the plea of legitimate expectations can be founded thereon.