Today, On 3rd November, The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India on a plea seeking strict regulation and oversight of political parties. The petition highlights the unchecked rise of political parties and calls for comprehensive reforms in their registration process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a petition that calls for comprehensive regulations for the registration and oversight of political parties, which have proliferated unchecked across the nation.
Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi were reviewing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) presented by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who represented himself.
The petition aims to direct the ECI to enhance transparency and accountability in the operations of political parties.
During the session, Justice Surya Kant remarked that “the petition contained very meaningful prayers,” indicating that the matter deserved serious consideration.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing the Union of India, stated that he would seek guidance from the ECI regarding the concerns raised.
Highlighting the necessity for a thoughtful response from the Election Commission, The Bench noted,
“Unless there is a very strong impediment, we would like to issue directions,”
Acknowledging the petitioner’s request to notify the ECI, the Court ordered that notice be served in the interlocutory application (IA No. 240790 of 2025). The case will be revisited for further discussion on a future date.
The PIL also requests that the Union Government implement effective measures to combat corruption, casteism, linguism, regionalism, communalism, and the criminalization of public life.
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay cites recent Income Tax raids to highlight the urgency for reform. On July 13, 2025, raids at the offices of two parties Indian Social Party and Yuva Bharat Atma Nirbhar Dal reportedly uncovered black money amounting to Rs.500 crore.
According to the petition, these organizations were established primarily to receive cash donations through hawala networks and subsequently return the funds via cheque after deducting a 20% commission. A news article from Dainik Bhaskar has been attached to the petition as supporting evidence.
The petitioner argues that nearly 90% of registered political parties do not participate in elections and instead function merely as channels for money laundering.
Also Read: Stay Curious and Never Stop Learning: CJI-Designate Justice Surya Kant to Young Lawyers
The plea alleges that some leaders of these parties have criminal pasts, including involvement in drug trafficking, land mafia activities, kidnappings, and serious offenses such as rape and contract killings, yet continue to receive police protection under the guise of politics.
The petition claims that these fictitious parties exploit political recognition to appear legitimate, with their leaders flaunting SUVs equipped with sirens and large nameplates, living off illicit funds while masquerading as public figures.
The PIL states,
“All this is happening only because there is no comprehensive law to regulate the functioning of political parties,”
The document emphasizes that political parties hold significant constitutional status and wield considerable power under the Tenth Schedule. They can enforce party whips, recommend disqualifications of members, and effectively influence legislation and governance. However, unlike corporations, cooperatives, trusts, or even religious institutions, political parties are not subject to any stringent regulatory framework.
Although Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act requires registration and Section 29C mandates the disclosure of donations exceeding Rs. 20,000, there is no legislation that governs their internal democracy, funding transparency, or accountability.
Political parties benefit from significant indirect state financing, including free airtime on All India Radio and Doordarshan, tax exemptions under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, subsidized accommodations, and complimentary access to electoral rolls.
The petitioner argues, asserting that they must be regarded as “public authorities” under the law,
“Despite being substantially funded by the State and performing crucial public functions, political parties escape accountability,”
The PIL contends that political parties not only determine the outcomes for candidates in State Assemblies and Parliament but also impact the elections for the President, Vice President, and Chief Ministers.
In the absence of statutory regulations, they remain unaccountable despite wielding significant power within India’s constitutional framework.
By citing examples from other democracies where party regulation is legally mandated, the petition underscores the need for internal party democracy, term limits for leadership, transparent funding standards, and penalties for breaches.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.