Supreme Court on Friday rejected a petition filed by Prashant Kishor–led Jan Suraaj challenging the outcome of the Bihar Assembly election held in November last year, bringing an end to the fledgling party’s first major legal challenge after a bruising electoral debut. The court declined to interfere with the election results, ruling that the plea failed to meet the legal threshold required to unsettle a completed democratic process.The petition had sought to have the election declared null and void, alleging widespread violations of the Model Code of Conduct by the ruling Janata Dal –Bharatiya Janata Party alliance. Jan Suraaj argued that the alleged breaches created an uneven playing field and vitiated the fairness of the contest, particularly during the campaign’s closing phase. The party had contested 238 seats and did not secure a single victory, an outcome it described in court filings as inconsistent with the support it claimed to have mobilised on the ground.
A bench of the apex court observed that allegations of misconduct, even if taken at face value, must demonstrate a clear and material impact on the overall result to justify the extraordinary step of setting aside an election. The judges noted that election law provides specific remedies and forums for redressing grievances, including election petitions before designated courts, and cautioned against attempts to convert political dissatisfaction into constitutional litigation without robust evidence.
While dismissing the plea, the court underlined the importance of respecting institutional processes established under the Representation of the People Act. It held that claims relating to violations of the Model Code of Conduct are primarily within the remit of the Election Commission, and that judicial intervention is warranted only when statutory remedies have been exhausted or when there is a demonstrable breach of fundamental rights.
The ruling came as a setback for Jan Suraaj, which was launched by Kishor after he stepped away from behind-the-scenes political consulting to enter electoral politics directly. The party had positioned itself as a reform-oriented platform focused on governance, employment and social equity, and had embarked on an extensive outreach programme across Bihar ahead of the polls. Despite high visibility and a sustained campaign, the party struggled to convert attention into votes, finishing far behind established regional and national players.
Legal observers said the judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s consistent reluctance to reopen concluded elections without compelling proof of systemic wrongdoing. Courts have repeatedly held that democracy requires finality, and that challenges must clear a high evidentiary bar to avoid destabilising electoral outcomes. In this case, the bench found no basis to conclude that the alleged code violations altered the mandate delivered by voters.
Jan Suraaj’s petition had accused the ruling alliance of using official machinery and making policy announcements that, it claimed, influenced voters in violation of election norms. It also alleged selective enforcement by authorities. The court, however, said such claims were broad and insufficiently substantiated, adding that the Election Commission had mechanisms to examine complaints during the campaign period and issue corrective directions where warranted.
The decision is likely to shape the party’s next steps as it reassesses its political strategy following the election rout. Kishor has publicly acknowledged organisational weaknesses and the challenge of building a cadre-based party in a crowded political landscape dominated by entrenched formations with deep social coalitions. The court’s refusal to entertain the plea closes one avenue of contestation, pushing the party back towards organisational rebuilding rather than legal redress.
For the ruling alliance, the judgment removes a lingering legal cloud over its mandate in Bihar. Leaders of the Janata Dal and Bharatiya Janata Party have maintained that the election was conducted fairly and that their victory reflected voter endorsement of governance and stability. The court’s order effectively affirms that position, at least in legal terms.