Former poll strategist Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025 and seeking fresh polls in the state.
The matter is likely to come up for hearing on Friday before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.
The BJP-led NDA retained power in the state, winning 202 of the total 243 seats, while the INDIA bloc bagged only 35, including six of the Congress.
The Jan Suraaj Party failed to open its account in the assembly polls, with most of its candidates losing their deposits.
In its plea, the party has accused the Bihar government of violating the Model Code by transferring Rs 10,000 each to women under the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana after the announcement of poll schedule.
The petition has sought directions to the poll panel to take action under Article 324 of Constitution (superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections) and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act against direct transfer of money to women voters in the state.
The Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana provides an initial financial grant of Rs 10,000 to women to launch small businesses and promote self-employment and women's empowerment in the state.
The petition argues that releasing cash benefits during this period amounted to “corrupt practices” meant to unduly influence voters in favour of the ruling government.
The plea claims that this deprived other political parties of a level playing field and struck at the core requirement of free and fair elections.
The plea has also flagged the role of the Election Commission of India. It has alleged that women, who were beneficiaries of the scheme, were deployed at polling booths on voting days in both phases of polling, even though many of them had already received the cash benefit.
According to Jan Suraaj, this deployment had no rational basis and further compromised the neutrality expected during elections.
Another key challenge in the petition relates to how the scheme was funded. The party claims that the programme was approved by a cabinet decision without legislative sanction and that money was withdrawn from the State’s Contingency Fund, allegedly in violation of Article 267 of the Constitution. It has been alleged that the scheme was not part of the regular budgetary process.