The Supreme Court on Thursday, February 26, issued a notice to the central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea to limit the expenditure of political parties during elections.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to the Center and the election body and sought their replies. The bench said, “Notice of issue, returnable on April 27.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the effectiveness of campaign spending regulations when supported by a candidate’s friend, citing the constitutional right to freedom of expression against the restrictions.
The judge said: “You see the US election…there are party spending limits in candidate A’s friends…say an Indian American PAC will fund you, where is the limit? Your political party may be banned but friends of Mr. Bhushan, they will fund…say they put an embargo that no funding exceeds X limit…Will you bring us, say Article 19, which will support freedom?” reported LiveLaw.
What did the request say?
The plea stated that the absence of any spending limit for political parties, despite strict restrictions on individual candidates under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, created an “unlevel playing field” in electoral contests, in breach of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
“Explanation 1(a) to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 creates a legal fiction by excluding from the account massive expenditure incurred by political parties in connection with the election of a candidate, even though the expenditure serves the same electoral purpose,” it said.
The cause of action mentioned that Section 77, Paragraph 1 of the Act introduced restrictions on the expenses of individual candidates during elections.
It also sought a direction to declare Explanation 1(a) to Section 77(1) of the Act unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He said a corruption free system is one of the important aspects of free and fair elections.
“This court has decided time and again that democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law are essential features of the Constitution, so they cannot be circumvented even by constitutional change,” he said.
“The Supreme Court, while emphasizing the role of money power in elections and election campaigning, has consistently noted that elections today are increasingly contested by the power of money power, which is often obtained from illegal, self-interested sources, thereby undermining the fairness of the electoral process itself,” the lawsuit states.
