"Election or Transaction?": Inside Prashant Kishor's SC Case Against Bihar Polls

Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party (JSP) delivered a massive legal jolt to the Bihar political establishment today by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking the complete annulment of the 2025 Bihar Assembly Election results. The plea, listed for hearing tomorrow (Feb 6) before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, alleges that the ruling NDA government vitiated the "level playing field" by transferring ₹10,000 cash to over 25 lakh women beneficiaries while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force.

The petition moves beyond political rhetoric, accusing the Election Commission of India (ECI) of a "miserable failure" to prevent the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (MMRY) after the poll schedule was announced. While the NDA celebrates a landslide 202-seat victory, Kishor—whose party failed to win a single seat—is betting his political survival on a judicial declaration that the election was not a democratic mandate, but a financial transaction.

The Context (How We Got Here)

• The Trigger: Jan Suraaj alleges that between October 6 and November 11, 2025, the state government added millions of "new beneficiaries" to the MMRY scheme, bypassing legislative sanction and drawing funds from the Contingency Fund of the State.
• The Background: In November 2025, the NDA won 202 seats, while Jan Suraaj drew a blank (0 seats) and lost deposits in 236 of the 238 seats contested. Kishor initially took personal responsibility for the "poll drubbing" but maintained the election was compromised by DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) inducements.
• The Escalation: The petition relies on the discrepancy between the 1.1 crore existing JEEVIKA members and the 1.56 crore beneficiaries reportedly paid post-MCC, alleging that the 1.8 lakh "JEEVIKA Didis" deployed at polling booths acted as state-sponsored influencers.

The Key Players (Who & So What)

Prashant Kishor (Founder, Jan Suraaj): The Challenger. He is attempting to pivot from a "defeated strategist" to a "crusader for electoral integrity." If the court agrees that cash transfers during MCC constitute bribery, it would redefine the power of incumbency in India.

CJI Surya Kant (Chief Justice of India): The Arbiter. His bench must decide if Jan Suraaj should have filed "election petitions" in the High Court instead of a writ in the Supreme Court—a technicality that often sinks such high-profile challenges.

Nitish Kumar (Chief Minister, Bihar): The Beneficiary. His government maintains the MMRY is a legitimate empowerment scheme initiated before the polls. A court-ordered stay or inquiry would threaten his 2025 mandate.

The BIGSTORY Reframe (The "DBT" Dilemma)

The media is framing this as a "sore loser’s" last stand, but the legal core is far more explosive: Is an ongoing DBT scheme a "continuous welfare measure" or a "periodic electoral inducement"?

Jan Suraaj’s petition forces the Supreme Court to revisit the 2013 S. Subramaniam Balaji judgment on freebies. By highlighting that funds were drawn from the Contingency Fund (Article 267) rather than a regular budget, Kishor is arguing that this wasn't policy—it was an emergency "buying" operation. If the SC mandates a "cooling-off period" for DBT schemes before elections, it will dismantle the most potent weapon used by ruling parties across India to secure vote banks.

The Implications (Why This Matters)

• Precedent for 2026 States: If the SC issues notice, state governments in upcoming election cycles may be barred from adding new beneficiaries to cash-transfer schemes once the MCC is active.
• Jan Suraaj’s Survival: A dismissal would likely end the party’s relevance. A "Notice" from the SC would give Kishor a massive narrative victory, allowing him to claim his "0 seats" were stolen, not lost.
• ECI Accountability: The plea seeks strict guidelines for the ECI to monitor "Fintech Bribery," where money is moved digitally to millions of accounts in minutes, bypassing traditional flying squads.

The Closing Question (Now, Think About This)

In an era of Direct Benefit Transfers, can the Election Commission truly guarantee a "level playing field" when the ruling party holds the digital key to the state’s vault?

FAQs

Why has Jan Suraaj moved the Supreme Court against the 2025 Bihar elections? The party alleges "institutional bribery" through the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, claiming the state government illegally transferred ₹10,000 each to millions of women voters after the Model Code of Conduct was in force.

Did Prashant Kishor win any seats in the 2025 Bihar election? No. Despite contesting 238 seats, the Jan Suraaj Party won zero seats and lost its deposit in nearly all constituencies (236 out of 238).

What is the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana controversy? It is a Bihar government scheme providing ₹10,000 grants to women. Jan Suraaj alleges that new beneficiaries were added and funds were disbursed specifically to influence the 2025 election results.

What is the deployment of JEEVIKA workers allegation? The petition claims that 1.8 lakh women from JEEVIKA self-help groups, who were also scheme beneficiaries, were deployed at polling booths to compromise electoral neutrality.

When is the Supreme Court hearing the Jan Suraaj petition? A bench led by CJI Surya Kant is scheduled to hear the matter on Friday, February 6, 2026.

Sources

News Coverage

• LawBeat: Prashant Kishor Challenges Bihar Government's DBT Scheme in Supreme Court
• The Hindu: Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party moves SC challenging Bihar elections, seeks fresh polls

Context & Analysis

• LiveLaw: Jan Suraaj Party Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bihar Elections, Questions Direct Transfer Of Rs 10K To Women
• SabrangIndia: PIL filed in the Patna High Court, claims the MMR Yojana was used to influence voters