The real power of democracy lies not in the letter of the constitution, but in the trust of the people. This trust of the people must be constantly maintained by the state, because if trust weakens, the democratic structure, no matter how strong it may appear externally, becomes hollow internally.

An election manifesto is a written form of the commitments, policies, programs, and assurances that political parties and candidates present to the public during an election. A manifesto is not just a political propaganda material, but a kind of public moral and democratic contract made with the public, on the basis of which voters exercise their votes and the legitimacy of the state is established. However, looking at the practical reality, after the election is over, it seems that those manifestos are often limited to formal documents, with no legal or constitutional responsibility for implementation. This has raised serious questions about the basic spirit of democracy.

In this context, a fundamental constitutional question arises: when the legislature itself does not seem willing to enact a law that makes the election manifesto binding, cannot the court, as the guardian of the constitution, intervene? Or, to put it more clearly, is it not its constitutional duty to take the initiative to bring the manifesto under the purview of accountability through a directive order? This article analyzes the legal, democratic and constitutional significance of the election manifesto with this question in mind, and attempts to legitimately establish the justification for the court to intervene through judicial activism.

Legal and Democratic Significance of the Manifesto

The manifesto is a bridge of trust between a political party and the voters. In a democratic system, voters cast their votes based not only on the individual, but also on the policies, views and commitments presented by the individual. In this sense, the manifesto is the main instrument for forming the voters' decision and is seen as the backbone of the democratic process. Elections without a manifesto become a transfer of power based solely on the popularity of the individual, which makes democracy person-centered, not policy-centered.

Although the term ‘election manifesto’ is not directly used in the Constitution of Nepal, the manifesto is deeply intertwined with the core spirit and fundamental principles of the Constitution. Constitutional values ​​such as democratic governance, people's sovereignty, responsible and accountable government, transparency and good governance are directly related to the credibility and implementation of the manifesto. If the manifesto remains completely non-binding, these values ​​risk being confined to constitutional documents rather than being implemented in practice. The unreliability of the manifesto creates disillusionment among voters, increases apathy towards elections and ultimately weakens faith in democracy. Therefore, leaving the manifesto entirely to political ethics seems insufficient.

Legislature's inaction and conflict of interest

The primary responsibility for creating a legal framework that makes the election manifesto binding lies with the legislature. But in practice, the legislature seems to be consistently silent on this issue. The root cause of this is clear: if the manifesto is linked to legal or constitutional accountability, political parties and elected representatives will have to be bound by their own promises. This limits their discretionary power, political bargaining and convenience. At this point, the 'conflict of interest' is clearly visible. Whoever has the right to make laws does not want to be bound by those laws themselves. In such a situation, it is unrealistic to expect voluntary reforms from the legislature. The defense of democracy depends only on the will of the majority.

Leaving short-term political interests can damage long-term constitutional values. In such a situation, according to the principle of balance of power envisaged by the Constitution, it is not unnatural, but inevitable for another constitutional organ, the judiciary, to intervene.

Role of the Court: Guardian of the Constitution

is linked to accountability, political parties and elected representatives will have to be bound by their own promises. This limits their discretionary power, political bargaining and convenience. The court is not only a technical institution for resolving disputes, but also the final interpreter and guardian of the constitution. When the values ​​enshrined in the constitution are frustrated in practice, the court cannot remain silent. If the constitution itself is a living document is, which the court must keep making meaningful over time. The Supreme Court of Nepal has repeatedly established this principle in various judgments that where the legislature or the executive fail to discharge their constitutional duties, the court can fill the constitutional void. This intervention is not usurpation of power, but rather the discharge of constitutional responsibility, the same principle applies in the context of election manifestos. When a manifesto, although a foundation of democracy, is made completely unaccountable, then the very spirit of the constitution is weakened, the protection of which falls within the duty of the court.

Judicial activism and directive orders

Judicial activism is the court's intervention beyond its traditional boundaries with the aim of making the objectives and values ​​of the constitution effective. There are many examples of the Supreme Court in Nepal issuing directive orders to pave the way for policy and legal reforms in areas such as environmental protection, expansion of fundamental rights, gender equality, and prison reform. In the context of election manifestos, the court can also develop such standards through directive orders that bring the manifesto into the realm of accountability without making it a fully binding law.

The court can set standards that prohibit unrealistic, unconstitutional, or impossible promises, make binding arrangements to make the progress of the manifesto implementation public, direct the Election Commission to give clear authority to monitor the manifesto, and order the legislature to enact laws related to the manifesto within a certain time frame. All these measures help raise the manifesto from the level of political morality to the level of constitutional accountability.

Informed Suffrage and Declarations

The right to vote guaranteed by the Constitution is not just the formal right to vote. It is the right to make informed, meaningful and prudent decisions. If voters are forced to vote on the basis of declarations that are misleading, false or have no possibility of implementation, then it is not a real exercise of the right to vote. Therefore, not linking the declaration with accountability is indirectly interfering with the fundamental rights of the people. Since the protection of fundamental rights is a direct constitutional responsibility of the court, the court's activism in this area seems completely justified. The argument that the principle of separation of powers is violated when the court issues a directive order regarding the declaration seems superficial. The court is not making laws here, but is only creating constitutional pressure to start the process of making laws. This is not an encroachment of power, but an exercise of constitutional balance.