The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea seeking strict checks on unregulated spending by political parties during elections. The Court said the issue raises serious constitutional questions about free speech and the health of Indian democracy.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday asked the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file their responses on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the alleged uncontrolled use of money power by political parties during elections. The Court noted that the issue involves serious and complex constitutional questions that directly affect the country’s democratic system.
The matter was taken up by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi in the case titled Common Cause v. Union of India. The petition has been filed by the civil society organisation Common Cause.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the issue goes to the very foundation of free and fair elections in India. Addressing the Bench, he said, “This is a fundamental issue affecting democracy,” and stressed that excessive and unchecked political spending distorts the level playing field during elections.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi pointed out that even in countries like the United States, there are limits on election spending, but practical challenges remain. He observed,
“There are limits on spending in the US also, but what about the friends of the candidates,”
highlighting concerns about indirect spending and third-party financial support.
Justice Bagchi also raised possible constitutional issues if strict spending caps were imposed on political parties. He remarked,
“If we put an embargo on this much of spending…You will come and say Freedom under 19(1)(a) through material support is violated. Then what?”
indicating that restrictions on expenditure could lead to arguments that such limits violate the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In reply, Bhushan referred to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment striking down the electoral bonds scheme. He submitted,
“This court in the electoral bonds case has agreed that this is skewing our democracy because there is unbridled use of money power of political parties during elections,”
arguing that the Court has already recognised the damaging effect of unlimited political funding.
At this stage, the Bench did not go into the detailed merits of the case. After hearing the brief submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant passed a short order stating,
“Issue notice. List after 6 weeks.”
The matter will now be heard again after responses are filed by the Union government and the Election Commission.
This is not the first time such an issue has been raised before the judiciary. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had been approached with a similar plea seeking limits on political party expenditure and mandatory disclosure of actual spending during elections. That petition, filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), was withdrawn in January 2024 with permission to file a fresh plea.
The present petition has gained special importance after the landmark judgment delivered on February 15, 2024, in Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India. In that case, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the electoral bonds scheme.
The electoral bonds scheme had allowed individuals and companies to donate money to political parties anonymously by purchasing bearer bonds from the State Bank of India. These bonds could then be encashed by eligible political parties without revealing the identity of the donor to the public.
While declaring the scheme unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that such anonymity violated the citizens’ right to information and affected their ability to make informed electoral choices.
The Court ruled that the scheme infringed the guarantee of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also struck down amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017 to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act, which had enabled anonymous political donations.
The Court further directed the State Bank of India to provide complete details of all electoral bonds purchased and encashed since April 2019 to the Election Commission of India, so that the information could be made public.
After that judgment, another petition was filed before the apex court seeking confiscation of funds received under the electoral bonds scheme and requesting a court-monitored investigation into alleged quid pro quo arrangements.
The petition claimed that the disclosed data suggested that some donations may have been made to avoid criminal proceedings or to gain financial benefits such as government contracts or favourable policy decisions.
ALSO READ: Political Funding In India: Legal And Constitutional Framework For Regulating It
The new PIL by Common Cause now seeks broader reforms in political funding and expenditure. It argues that without proper limits and transparency in political party spending, free and fair elections — which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution — may be seriously compromised.
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Centre and the Election Commission signals that the Court considers the issue significant and worthy of detailed constitutional examination in the coming weeks.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Political Funding
