A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw dismissed the plea that also wanted party manifestos to be declared "legally binding documents".
Rejecting the plea, the bench said it could not make manifestos legally binding.
The court's order came on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, who challenged the validity of post-poll alliances on the ground that it was a "breach of the promises made by them during the election campaigns".
The plea also sought directions preventing political parties from violating their own manifestos when such parties enter into post-poll alliances in order to form a government.
It alleged that post-poll alliances were "clearly violation of the commitment and promise of the political parties and hurt the sentiments of the voters".