JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India who has accepted notice for respondent no.1, Sri V.K. Dubey, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary. for respondent no.3 are present. 2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner, claiming to be in representative capacity of people and a public spirited person and social man, with the following prayers:- "(i) To issue a writ order or direction of an appropriate nature commanding and directing that registration and non-recognition of the erring political parties that have been in power either as a main leading party or as an alliance sharing the power in the Central Government be cancelled barred from participating in the election process forth-with and they (political parties) be de-registered and de-recognizd and their election symbol be freezed forthwith. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction of an appropriate nature that unless and until the proper accountability in dealing with the election manifesto for translating them into action is fixed and accounted for participation of the erring political party in any election may kindly be debarred and their election symbol be forfeited. (iii) To issue a writ order or direction of an appropriate nature to direct the State respondents to consider the conduct of exercising plebiscite / referendum on this issue by the electorate / citizen of India. (iv) Pass any other suitable order or direction in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) Allow the instant writ petition with cost throughout." 3. The facts as culled out from the pleadings in the writ petition for adjudication of the case in hand are that the election manifestos are issued by the political parties entering into election fray to the general election of the Parliament and State Assemblies containing their commitment and principles to be followed, works to be done, policies to be made and planning to be done during that particular tenure of the Government, if elected to the power and form the Government of the said party. It has been observed that manifestos extend tall promises and commitments which are hardly capable of being transformed into action. It has been observed that manifestos extend tall promises and commitments which are hardly capable of being transformed into action. The political parties in general and the Bhartiya Janata Party in particular, because it is forming the Government at the centre after general election of 2014 which is coming to end on completion of the current general election, have not been fulfilled the promises made in the manifesto. Therefore, it has been prayed that in the interest of democracy, citizen of India and the Constitution of India this Court may hold the political party accountable and be honest in the implementation of the promises made in the election manifesto failing which the party should suffer appropriate punishment in consequential like criminal liability in the form of fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust and de-cancellation and de-registration of the same including those of the allies. The petitioner has also given in the writ petition certain promises made in the election manifesto which have not been fulfilled alleging that the respondent no.4 has not only been negligent but committed criminal breach of trust as well. Since the law is silent on the subject therefore this Court may consider and make a direction or order in an appropriate nature to the respondent no.1 to exercise the option of plebiscite / referendum on this issue. Although the Constitution of India does not provide for the option but it does not prohibit also. There are instances of cancellation of election by the Election Commission on account of unfair and illegal practices adopted by the candidate. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 had made several promises in his election manifesto but they have not been fulfilled those promises during the last five years of their Government in the Center. Therefore, the registration and recognition of the respondent no.4 and such allies parties be cancelled and they be debarred from participating in the election and their symbol be forfeited. 5. He further relying on the observation of Lord Denning, an eminent jurist, in the case of Seaford Court Etates Ltd. Vs. Asher, (1949) 2 AllER 155 as reproduced in 2001 (42) ACC 108 submitted that the writ petition may be allowed and the necessary direction be issued in this regard. The relevant portion of the observation in the case of Seaford Court Etates Ltd. Vs. Asher, (1949) 2 AllER 155 as reproduced in 2001 (42) ACC 108 submitted that the writ petition may be allowed and the necessary direction be issued in this regard. The relevant portion of the observation in the case of Seaford Court Etates Ltd. Vs. Asher; (Supra) is reproduced as under:- "When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give "force and life" to the intention of the legislature. A judge should ask himself the question how, If the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it......? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. The manifesto of a political party issued at the time of general election is a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives or views of the said party, what it hopes and vows to do if it is elected and forms the government in future. Such a hope and vow of a party can not have any binding effect or implemented through court of law and it can also not be de-registered for not fulfilling it even if some people or class of people are alleged to have been allured by it as admittedly it has no legal sanctity. The people, through their votes in the next election, can show their resentment. 8. Lord Denning in regard to election manifesto has observed in Brobley London Borough Council Vs. Greater London Council, (1982) 1 AllER 129 as under:- "A manifesto issued by a political party, in order to get votes, is not to be taken as gospel. It is not to be regarded as a bond, signed, sealed and delivered. It may contain, and often does contain, promises or proposals that are quite unworkable or impossible of attainment. Very few of the electorate read the manifesto in full. A Goodly number only know of it from what they read in the newspapers or hear on television. Many know nothing whatever of what it contains. It may contain, and often does contain, promises or proposals that are quite unworkable or impossible of attainment. Very few of the electorate read the manifesto in full. A Goodly number only know of it from what they read in the newspapers or hear on television. Many know nothing whatever of what it contains. When they come to the polling booth, none of them vote for the manifesto. Certainly not for every promise or proposal in it. Some may be influenced by one proposal. Others by another. Many are not influenced by it at all. They vote for a party and not for a manifesto. I have no doubt that in this case many ratepayers voted for the Labour Party even though, on this one item alone, it was against their interests. And vice Versa. It seems to me that no party can or should claim a mandate and commitment for any one item in a long manifesto. When the party gets into power, it should consider any proposal or promise afresh, on its merits, without any feeling of being obliged to honour it or being committed to it. It should then consider what is best to do in the circumstances of the case and to do it if it is practicable and fair." 9. The registration of the political parties is provided under Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (here-in-after referred as the R.P. Act 1951) on fulfilling the conditions as provided under the provision. But there is no provision of cancellation of registration of a political party in the R.P. Act 1951, what to say on the ground of non-fulfillment of promises made in the manifesto of a political party. Section 29A of the Act deals with the registration of a political party for the purposes of the R.P. Act. Sub-section (1) provides that any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of this part shall make an application to the Election Commission for its registration as a political party for the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (2) and (3) lays down as to how the application is to made. Sub-section (4) and (5) provides for the contents of the application. Sub-section (2) and (3) lays down as to how the application is to made. Sub-section (4) and (5) provides for the contents of the application. Sub-section (6) provides that the Commission may call for such other particulars as it may deem fit from the association or body. Sub-section (7) provides that after considering all the particulars as aforesaid in its possession and any other necessary and relevant factors and after giving the representatives of the association or body reasonable opportunity of being heard shall decide either to register or not to register it and communicate its decision to the association of the body. Sub-section (8) provides the decision of the Commission shall be final. Sub-section (9) provides regarding any change in its name, head office etc., after the registration of a political party. 10. Once the Election Commission decides to register a political party, it can not cancel the registration or de-register the political party as there is no such provision in the Act. De-registration of a political party involves divesting of a party of the statutory status granted on account of registration therefore it can not be de-registered unless there is statutory power of review conferred on the Election Commission. Under the Act, the Commission has no power to entertain or inquire into the complaint for de-registering a political party for having violated or not fulfilled the promises made in its manifesto or for any other purpose. 11. Therefore, since there is no legislation in this regard so no action can be taken for not fulfilling the promises and commitments made in a manifesto of a political party and reading down of the provision also does not arise. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of observation of Lord Denning (Supra) is misconceived and repelled. 12. So far as the allegation of criminal liability in the form of fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust are concerned, this Court is doubtful of having fulfilling the ingredients of the said offences. Even otherwise non fulfillment of the promise, made in a manifesto which has no legal sanctity, can not be a ground for criminal prosecution. However if any body is aggrieved, he may avail appropriate remedy available under criminal law. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of de-registration of a political party in the case of Indian National Congress (I) Vs. However if any body is aggrieved, he may avail appropriate remedy available under criminal law. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of de-registration of a political party in the case of Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 685 and held that the Election Commission has no power to entertain or inquire into the complaint for de-registering of a political party, however there are three exceptions where the Commission can review its order registering a political party one; where a political party obtained its registration by practising fraud or forgery, secondly; where a registered political party amends its nomenclature of the association, rules and regulations abrogating therein confirming to the provisions of Section 29A (5) of the Act and thirdly; any like ground where no inquiry is called for on the part of the Commission. The relevant paragraph 41 is reproduced as under:- "41. To sum up, what we have held in the foregoing paragraph are as under: 1. That there being no express provision in the Act or in the Symbol Order to cancel the registration of a political party, and as such no proceeding for de-registration can be taken by the Election Commission against a political party for having violated the terms of Section 29A(5) of the Act on the complaint of the respondent. 2. The Election Commission while exercising its power to register a political party under Section 29A of the Act, acts quasi-judicially and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial order and once a political party is registered, no power of review having conferred on the Election Commission, it has no power to review the order registering a political party for having violated the provisions of the Constitution or for having committed breach of undertaking given to the Election Commission at the time of registration. 3. However, there are exceptions to the principle stated in paragraph 2 above where the Election Commission is not deprived of its power to cancel the registration. 3. However, there are exceptions to the principle stated in paragraph 2 above where the Election Commission is not deprived of its power to cancel the registration. The exceptions are these - (a) where a political party has obtained registration by practising fraud or forgery; (b) where a registered political party amends its nomenclature of association, rules and regulations abrogating therein conforming to the provisions of Section 29A(5) of the Act or intimating the Election Commission that it has ceased to have faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy or it would not uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India so as to comply the provisions of Section 29A(5) of the Act; and (c) any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Commission. 4. The provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be extended to the quasi-judicial authority. Since the Election Commission while exercising its power under Section 29A of the Act acts quasi-judicially, the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application." 14. The promises in the election manifesto can also not be read into Section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice because the allegation of the corrupt practice can be levelled for an act against the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent which can not include the political party. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. State of Tamilnadu and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 659 has held as under in paragraph 84.1 :- "84.1. After examining and considering the parameters laid in Section 123 of RP Act, we arrived at a conclusion that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into Section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice. Thus, promises in the election manifesto do not constitute as a corrupt practice under the prevailing law. A reference to a decision of this Court will be timely. In Prof. Ramachandra g. Kapse Vs. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 206 this Court held that :- "21. ... Ex facie contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a corrupt practice committed by a candidate of that party." 15. A reference to a decision of this Court will be timely. In Prof. Ramachandra g. Kapse Vs. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 206 this Court held that :- "21. ... Ex facie contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a corrupt practice committed by a candidate of that party." 15. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that since there is no legislation on the subject, a political party, once registered, can not be de-registered except in the three circumstances mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian National Congress (I) (Supra). The writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court having considered that the reality can not be ruled out that undoubtedly it influences all people and it shakes the route of free and fair elections to a large decree issued direction to the Election Commission to frame guidelines and also recorded the need for separate legislation by the legislature in this regard. The relevant paragraphs 87 and 88 are reproduced as under:- "(87) Therefore, considering that there is no enactment that directly governs the contents of the election manifesto, we hereby direct the Election Commission to frame guidelines for the same in consultation with all the recognized political parties as when it had acted while framing guidelines for general conduct of the candidates, meetings, processions, polling day, party in power etc. In the similar way, 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 & Candidates. We are mindful of the fact that generally political parties release their election manifesto before the announcement of election date, in that scenario, strictly speaking, the Election Commission will not have the authority to regulate any act which is done before the announcement of the date. Nevertheless, an exception can be made in this regard as the purpose of election manifesto is directly associated with the election process. (88) We hereby direct the Election Commission to take up this task as early as possible owing to its utmost importance. We also record the need for a separate legislation to be passed by the legislature in this regard for governing the political parties in our democratic society." 17. (88) We hereby direct the Election Commission to take up this task as early as possible owing to its utmost importance. We also record the need for a separate legislation to be passed by the legislature in this regard for governing the political parties in our democratic society." 17. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that until some legislation is made in regard to election manifesto issued by the political parties, no direction can be issued by this Court. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.