Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider PIL Petitioner's Suggestions To Curb Election Expenses

The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Election Commission of India to consider the suggestions put forth by a petitioner regarding measures to curb excessive election expenditures.

Observing that the suggestions given by the petitioner are "worth consideration", a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Prabhakar Deshpande.

As soon as the matter was taken up, CJI Kant orally observed that the petitioner had raised a relevant issue. "The point is very interesting, but if we say something, it might be overreaching," CJI said. "It is for the Election Commission of India to lay down some guidelines. The petitioner has sought a comprehensive plan of action to curb excess election expenditure. Principally, we agree with that," CJI said.

When the bench was told that there are "caps" imposed on election expenses, Justice Bagchi commented in a lighter vein, "caps have gaps too". The petitioner submitted that for the 2024 election, the expenses were 100 times more than the ECI-imposed caps.

The petitioner also sought a direction to the ECI to re-examine the existing cap on election expenses, contending that the present limits have lost credibility and effectiveness in ensuring free and fair elections, thereby undermining democratic reforms.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner's primary grievance appeared to be that the ECI had not taken timely and effective action to prevent electoral malpractices and unchecked spending during election campaigns.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed outlining the measures already in place to monitor and regulate election expenditure. The ECI submitted that expenditure observers are deployed during elections and that dedicated accounting teams are constituted to track expenses incurred by candidates and political parties. The Commission further informed the Court that call centres and other monitoring mechanisms are also established as part of its enforcement framework.

CJI told Naidu that the ECI not treat this as an "adversarial litigation". Naidu assured that the ECI will be open to considering the suggestions given by the petitioner to improve the existing framework.

Taking note of the ECI's submissions, the Bench observed that the statutory authority has already put in place an institutional mechanism to oversee election expenditure. However, it also considered the independent suggestions placed before it by the petitioner aimed at strengthening the existing framework.

“Independent of the above cited report, the petitioner has given certain suggestions. We find that they are worth consideration by various committees set up by the ECI for preventing malpractices during the election process,” the Court observed.

"We deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with direction to ECI to circulate suggestions given by the petitioner amongst members of various committees, details whereof are submitted in the counter. If suggestions are found worthy, the committees may include the same in their SOP. Petitioner will be at liberty to submit further representation," the Court stated in the order.

Case Title: PRABHAKAR DESHPANDE v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1290/2021