The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Central Government and the Election Commission in response to a public interest litigation challenging the unregulated use of money by political parties during elections.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the issues raised in the petition involved complex constitutional questions, and posted the matter for further hearing in six weeks.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of petitioners Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, told the court that the petition “strikes at the heart of the democratic process… This is a fundamental issue affecting democracy.”
The petition highlighted a legal gap whereby candidates are subject to spending limits under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, but political parties face no such restrictions. The Law Commission has recommended caps on party expenditure, but no legislative or executive action has yet been taken.
Also read: SC imposes blanket ban on Class 8 NCERT textbook
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Electoral Bonds scheme, Bhushan noted that the court had acknowledged the ill effects of unchecked political funding, stating that “unbridled use of money power by political parties during elections” can skew democratic processes.
Electoral bonds, introduced through the Finance Act, 2017, and notified on January 2, 2018, are bearer instruments that can be purchased by Indian citizens or companies. The identity of donors remains confidential, except for the State Bank of India, allowing political parties to encash contributions anonymously.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had in February 2024 declared the scheme unconstitutional ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The bench held that anonymising political donations violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and said that the “integrity of the electoral process is a necessary concomitant to the maintenance of the democratic form of government.”
Justice Bagchi, during proceedings, raised concerns about foreign spending analogues, questioning whether imposing caps would infringe upon freedom of speech and expression, noting that donations from friends or supporters could still bypass any limits imposed.
Follow us
