By Dr. Gyan Pathak
Was Bihar election rigged by the ruling NDA through direct cash transfers to voters, and also by deploying the beneficiaries on election duty by the Election Commission of India? Was ECI’s ignoring the direct cash transfer to voters vitiated the very election process in the state? Were they serious violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) of election? These are the questions that would come before the Supreme Court of India to be resolved in the light of Jan Suraj Party’s (JSP) petition in the Supreme Court seeking repoll in the state.
JSP, founded by the well known political strategist Prashant Kishor has moved the Supreme court challenging CM Nitish Kumar led NDA government’s transfer of Rs 10,000 directly to one woman in every family to help her start self-employment with an additional assurance to give another Rs 2 lakh after assessment of their business. It is worth recalling that the scheme named the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojna was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 2025 through video conferencing.
Election result shows that NDA had won 202 seats out of 243. BJP had won 89 seats while Nitish Kumar led JD(U) won 85 seats. The opposition Mahagathbandhan, that is INDIA bloc, could win only 35 seats – RJD 25 and Congress only 6. JSP could not will any seat though it had contested 242 seats, and it had suffered forfeiture of deposits in majority of seats.
The matter is likely to come up before the Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on February 6, 2026. JSP has alleged the misuse of the state welfare scheme to influence voters ahead of the 2025 Bihar Election.
In the plea, JSP has said that eligibility for the scheme was linked to membership of “Jeevika”, which is a network of women’s self-help groups. The ruling establishment had also announced that those who were not the member of the “Jeevika” could also enroll in the scheme to received cash transfer into their account.
In the petition, JSP said that before the election process were started there were around one crore women associated with “Jeevika”, that was before the MCC came into force. Nevertheless, newspaper reports later showed that 1.56 crore women eventually received payment. This indicated that new beneficiaries were added and paid after the election schedule was announced and the MCC was in operation. JPS argued said that cash benefit transfer during this period amounted to “corrupt practices” which was intended to unduly influence voters in favour of the ruling establishment.
However, the Election Commission of India did not intervene. Not only that ECI even deployed those beneficiary women at polling booths on voting days in both the phases of polling. This deployment had not rational basis and further compromised the neutrality expected of ECI during elections.
JSP also challenged the mode of funding of the scheme. It said that the programme was approved by a cabinet decision without legislative sanction. The scheme was not part of the regular budgetary process. The money was also withdrawn from the State’s contingency fund. The party argued in the petition that it was a violation of Article 267 of the Constitution of India.
The government violated several earlier directions issued by the ECI on the MCC, which prohibited the governments from announcing or expanding welfare schemes, releasing of funds, or processing beneficiary-oriented programmes after the election are announced. Despite all prohibitions, the government announced the scheme when MCC was in operation and resorted to direct cash transfer, while the ECI failed to intervene effectively.
JSP said in this petition that in this way the election process was vitiated, violating the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the constitutional guarantees given under the Article 14, 21, and 324. The petition has also mentioned that even Supreme Court in the past has emphasized on free and fair election as a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Welfare measures cannot be used by the ruling parties as tools to secure electoral advantage, the petition stated, while claiming that this deprived other political parties of a level playing field and struck at the core requirement of free and fair election.
While seeking a direction for fresh election in Bihar in view of the alleged corrupt practices, the petition also seeks direction for the ECI to implement the Supreme Court’s directions in S Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659 and prepare comprehensive guidelines on freebies, Direct Benefit Transfer Schemes etc. It also seeks to fix a minimum time, preferably six months, to announce and implement welfare schemes by Political parties in power before announcement of the election schedule. (IPA Service)
