The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the alleged unregulated use of money power by political parties during elections, observing that the issue raises complex constitutional questions [Common Cause v. Union of India].
The plea was briefly heard by a Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the matter strikes at the heart of the democratic process.
“This is a fundamental issue affecting democracy,” Bhushan told the Court.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi referred to spending limits in other jurisdictions and raised questions about the effectiveness of such regulatory measures.
“There are limits on spending in the US also, but what about the friends of the candidates,” Justice Bagchi observed.
He further flagged possible constitutional concerns if expenditure restrictions were imposed.
“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?” Justice Bagchi remarked.
In response, Bhushan relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the electoral bonds case to contend that the Court had already recognised the distortive impact of unchecked political funding.
“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,” he submitted.
The Bench did not enter into the merits of the matter at this stage. After briefly hearing the submissions, the CJI Kant directed,
“Issue notice. List after 6 weeks.”
A similar plea was earlier filed before the Delhi High Court, seeking limits on the permissible expenditure by political parties during elections and for the disclosure of the money actually spent. The said plea by the Association for Democratic Reforms was, however, withdrawn in January 2024, with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The plea now before the top court has been filed by the society, Common Cause.
The present plea gains significance in light of the Supreme Court’s February 15, 2024, judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India, in which a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the electoral bonds scheme.
The scheme had enabled donors to contribute funds to political parties anonymously by purchasing bearer bonds from the State Bank of India.
Holding the scheme unconstitutional, the Court said that the cloak of anonymity violated citizens’ right to information and infringed the guarantee of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court had also struck down the amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2017, to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act that made such anonymous donations possible.
It directed the State Bank of India to share details of all electoral bonds purchased and encashed since April 2019 with the Election Commission of India for publication.
In the aftermath of the ruling, a separate petition was submitted to the apex court seeking confiscation of the funds received under the scheme and a court-monitored probe into alleged quid pro quo arrangements.
The plea contended that the details of purchase and encashment suggested that contributions were made either to sidestep potential criminal proceedings or to secure financial gains, such as government contracts or favourable policy decisions.
[Read Live Coverage]