SC Seeks Centre, EC Reply on Plea for Cap on Political Party Election Spend

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on a PIL seeking a statutory cap on election expenditure by political parties. The plea argues that while individual candidates have spending limits, the absence of caps for parties allows "unlimited financial resources" to influence campaigns. It cites previous Supreme Court observations and recommendations from bodies like the Law Commission on the distorting effect of money power. The petition contends this unregulated spending undermines electoral fairness and the parliamentary framework.

Key Points: SC Notice on PIL for Cap on Political Party Election Expenditure

  • SC seeks response from Centre & ECI
  • PIL argues candidate spending caps are ineffective without party limits
  • Cites Law Commission & ECI recommendations
  • Seeks to curb money power for electoral fairness
2 min read

SC issues notice on PIL seeking cap on political party election expenditure

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre & Election Commission on PIL seeking a legal ceiling on election spending by political parties to ensure fairness.

"unlimited financial resources - plea filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan"

New Delhi, Feb 26

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India on a public interest litigation seeking imposition of a ceiling on election expenditure incurred by political parties.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi sought responses from the Union government and the poll panel and directed that the matter be listed after six weeks.

According to the plea, while Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prescribes strict expenditure ceilings for individual candidates contesting elections, no corresponding statutory cap exists on spending by political parties.

The petition, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, argues that this legal framework allows parties to deploy "unlimited financial resources" during campaigns, effectively rendering candidate expenditure limits "illusory and ineffective".

The petitioner, the non-governmental organisation Common Cause, submitted that this dichotomy has been judicially acknowledged by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which highlighted the exclusionary and distortionary impact of unregulated party expenditure on electoral outcomes and democratic participation.

Describing free and fair elections as the "cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy", the plea submits that unregulated party spending has undermined equality of political opportunity and distorted the representative character of parliamentary democracy.

It also referred to recommendations made by multiple expert bodies, including the Law Commission's 170th Report and consultations conducted by the ECI in 2015, which suggested regulation or ceilings on political party expenditure.

Further, the plea argued that unchecked spending has led to increasing "presidentialisation" of Indian elections, where campaigns are centred around projecting a single leader through massive financial outlays, contrary to the parliamentary framework envisaged under the Constitution.

Drawing a comparative reference, the PIL cited the United Kingdom's Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which imposes statutory limits on campaign expenditure by political parties and provides for penal consequences in case of violations.

Contending that the growing influence of money power has "gravely undermined electoral fairness, equality of political opportunity, and the representative character of parliamentary democracy", the plea has sought directions to ensure a level playing field in elections.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Finally! The SC notice is welcome. The current system is like having a speed limit for a bicycle but not for the SUV towing it. How can a candidate's cap matter when the party spends unlimited amounts on their behalf? Hope this brings real change.
R
Rohit P
While the intent is good, I'm skeptical. Big parties will always find loopholes - corporate donations, anonymous funds, etc. The law needs to be watertight and the ECI must have real teeth to enforce it. Otherwise, it's just another notice that leads nowhere.
S
Sarah B
The point about "presidentialisation" is spot on. Elections are becoming about one leader's brand, funded by massive party war chests, rather than about local candidates and issues. This distorts our parliamentary system.
K
Karthik V
Good move. But what about the funding itself? Electoral bonds might be gone, but we need complete transparency in ALL political funding. Cap the spending, but also show us where every rupee is coming from. Janata ko pata hona chahiye.
M
Michael C
Interesting to see the UK law being cited. Many democracies have such caps. It's high time India implemented this. Unlimited spending gives an unfair advantage to established parties and stifles new, smaller voices.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50