On Thursday, February 26, the Supreme Court sent letters to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Central government over a request for a cap on political party spending during elections.
Judges Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi, and Chief Justice Surya Kant sent notifications to the poll body and the Center, asking them to respond. “Issue notice, returnable on April 27,” the bench stated.
Citing the constitutional right to freedom of expression against limitations, Justice Joymalya Bagchi had also questioned the efficacy of election expenditure regulations when a candidate’s friend supports them.
The court remarked, “You see, in the US elections, there are spending limitations by party in the friends of candidate A. What if an Indian American PAC were to finance you? Your political party might be prohibited, but Mr. Bhushan’s friends will provide funding.
Let us imagine we impose an embargo that prohibits fundraising beyond X.You will stand in front of us and cite Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to free speech through material assistance. “How are we going to manage that?” LiveLaw reported.
“The Representation of the People Act, 1951’s Explanation 1(a) to Section 77(1) establishes a legal fiction by omitting from account the large expenditures paid by political parties in connection with a candidate’s election, even when the spending serve the same electoral objective,”
Despite stringent restrictions on individual candidates under section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the plea argued that the absence of any spending cap on political parties creates a “unlevel playing field” in election contests, in violation of the right to equality protected by Article 14 of the Constitution.
According to the plea, Section 77(1) of the Act imposed limitations on the total amount of money that individual candidates might spend during an election.
It also asked for a finding declaring Explanation 1(a) to Section 77(1) of the Act illegal because it contradicts Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.While emphasizing the role of money power in elections and electioneering, the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that money power, frequently obtained from illicit sources with vested interests, is becoming a more significant factor in today’s election contests, undermining the electoral process’s fairness, the plea said.
The statement read, “This court has repeatedly held that democracy, free and fair elections, and the Rule of Law are fundamental elements of the Constitution, meaning that they cannot be discarded, not even by a constitutional amendment.”
