Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission’s Response on Plea for Political Party Transparency

In a significant move to strengthen political accountability, the Supreme Court of India has sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea demanding stricter compliance by political parties with existing disclosure laws. The plea calls for political parties to make public their rules, establishment documents, and details of financial contributions as mandated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

---

Background of the Petition

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which issued a notice to the ECI on Monday. The bench acted upon an application filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer, in his pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

The application was filed in the context of increasing instances where political parties have been allegedly misused for money laundering and tax evasion, leading to calls for greater transparency and accountability within the political system.

The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj to seek specific instructions from the ECI regarding the concerns raised in the petition. The case is scheduled for further hearing on January 9.

---

Legal Basis: Statutory Provisions Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

The petitioner has relied on Sections 29A, 29B, and 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which collectively establish a framework for the registration, functioning, and financial accountability of political parties.

Section 29A – Registration of Political Parties

• This section mandates that every political party seeking registration must furnish to the ECI:

  • Its memorandum of association,

  • Rules and regulations, and

  • Details of office-bearers.

• Under Section 29A(6), the Election Commission is empowered to call for any additional particulars it deems necessary from the association or body.

• Section 29A(9) further obligates political parties to promptly communicate any change in name, head office, address, or office-bearers to the ECI.

Section 29B – Contributions to Political Parties

• Allows political parties to accept voluntary contributions from individuals or companies, other than government companies and foreign sources.

Section 29C – Declaration of Contributions

• Mandates that political parties must declare all contributions exceeding ₹20,000 received from any person or company.

• These details must be submitted annually to the ECI in prescribed formats.

---

Petitioner’s Argument: Political Parties as Public Authorities

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that political parties occupy a pivotal position in India’s democratic framework. They:

• Nominate candidates for elections,

• Influence public policy,

• Command legislative representation, and

• Enjoy tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act.

Thus, the petitioner contends that political parties must be treated as public authorities and be subject to transparency obligations, akin to other entities that serve public functions.

He emphasized that it is the constitutional duty of the ECI to ensure that political parties uphold “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India,” as required under Section 29A(5) of the 1951 Act.

---

Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

The petition implicitly invokes the following constitutional principles:

1. Article 324 – Empowers the Election Commission to supervise, direct, and control elections, thereby ensuring free and fair electoral processes.

2. Article 19(1)(a) – Guarantees the right to information as part of freedom of speech, reinforcing the public’s right to know about the financial and organizational transparency of political entities.

3. Article 14 – Ensures equality before law, demanding equal accountability from all institutions involved in democratic governance.

4. Preamble of the Constitution – Enshrines the principle of democracy, which inherently demands transparency, accountability, and integrity from political parties.

---

Judicial Precedents on Transparency in Political Parties

The Supreme Court’s concern over transparency in political financing aligns with its earlier jurisprudence:

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 – The Court recognized voters’ right to know the background of candidates contesting elections as part of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).

• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 – Reaffirmed that the right to information about candidates and political functioning is integral to the freedom of expression.

• Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) 5 SCC 685 – The Supreme Court held that the ECI has the power to register political parties but no express power to de-register them, though regulatory oversight remains within its constitutional mandate.

These precedents underline the judiciary’s stance that democratic transparency cannot be confined to individuals but must extend to political collectives that shape governance.

---

Recent Developments: Allegations of Misuse and Shell Parties

Upadhyay’s plea also references recent Income Tax raids conducted in July and August on entities such as the Indian Social Party, Yuva Bharat Atma Nirbhar Dal, and National Sarva Samaj Party. These parties were allegedly used as shell organizations to introduce black money into legitimate financial channels.

The petitioner urged the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to:

• De-register shell political parties, and

• Debar convicted persons from forming or leading political outfits.

---

Broader Significance: Strengthening Electoral Integrity

This case raises a critical question about the scope of the ECI’s powers and the accountability of political entities that wield immense influence over India’s democratic institutions.

Ensuring that parties disclose their internal regulations and funding sources would mark a major step towards:

• Curtailing corruption,

• Preventing financial opacity, and

• Enhancing public trust in the political process.

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing in January 2026 is expected to clarify whether existing statutory mechanisms are adequate or if further legislative or judicial intervention is warranted to enforce transparency among political parties.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s notice to the Election Commission reflects a growing judicial acknowledgment that democracy cannot thrive without transparency in its foundational institutions.

If implemented, the directions sought by the petitioner could lead to unprecedented political accountability, compelling parties to function with integrity, openness, and constitutional allegiance.

As the nation awaits the ECI’s response, the case underscores a simple but powerful truth — transparency is the lifeblood of democracy.

---