Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj moves Supreme Court against Bihar cash scheme, alleges vote influence

Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishor (File photo)

• Jan Suraaj Party petitions Supreme Court on Bihar's welfare scheme pre-elections
• Petition claims MCC cash transfers intended to sway voters, violating EC rules.
• Plea challenges scheme's funding and beneficiary deployment at polls

Did our AI summary help?

The Jan Suraaj Party, floated by political strategist Prashant Kishor, has moved the Supreme Court accusing the Bihar government of misusing a newly launched welfare scheme to sway voters during the 2025 Assembly elections.

The party contended that direct cash transfers made under the programme while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force amounted to “corrupt practices” and undermined the fairness of the electoral process.

In its petition, the party has questioned the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, introduced shortly before the polls by the Nitish-led government.

Under this scheme, the State announced a transfer of Rs 10,000 to one woman per family to help her begin self-employment, along with a promise of an additional Rs 2 lakh after assessment.

According to Jan Suraaj, the design and timing of the programme were aimed at influencing voters. The plea pointed out that eligibility for the benefit was linked to membership of JEEVIKA, a network of women’s self-help groups, and that women not already part of JEEVIKA were allowed to enrol to receive assistance.

The party claimed that around one crore women were members of JEEVIKA before the MCC came into force. However, newspaper reports later suggested that about 1.56 crore women ultimately received payments.

This, the petition argued, showed that new beneficiaries were added and given money even after the election schedule was announced.

Releasing funds during this period, Jan Suraaj said, violated Election Commission guidelines which bar governments from announcing or expanding welfare schemes, releasing fresh funds, or processing beneficiary-oriented programmes once elections are notified, if such actions are likely to influence voters.

The plea maintained that these steps strike at the “core requirement of free and fair elections” and deny opposition parties a level playing field.

The petition also criticised the role of the Election Commission of India. It alleged that women who were beneficiaries of the scheme were deployed at polling booths on voting days in both phases of the election, despite having already received cash benefits.

According to the party, this deployment had no rational justification and further weakened the neutrality expected during elections.

Another aspect of the challenge concerned the source of funding.

Jan Suraaj claimed that the scheme was approved through a cabinet decision without legislative sanction and that money was drawn from the State’s Contingency Fund in violation of Article 267 of the Constitution. It also asserted that the programme was not part of the regular budgetary process.

Although the party contested 242 of Bihar’s 243 Assembly constituencies in 2025, it failed to win a single seat. It has told the Court that it is relying primarily on newspaper reports, as official data are not available on government websites.

The petition argued that the alleged actions vitiated the election process, violating the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21 and 324.

It also cited the Supreme Court’s past emphasis on free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Constitution, stressing that welfare measures cannot be used as instruments for electoral gain.

The matter, filed through advocate Aditya Singh, is expected to be heard by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday, February 6.