Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, ECI On PIL To Curb Unregulated Election Expenditure By Political Parties

The Supreme Court today issues notice on a PIL, filed by Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation, raising the issue of unregulated election spending by political parties.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi passed the order.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioners, submitted at the outset that existing law provides for limits on use of money power by candidates during elections, but the said limits are not enforced. He further highlighted that though someone spending money on behalf of a candidate is counted towards the candidate's election expenditure, expenses by a political party are not accounted for as such.

Besides, he added, there are no limits on spending by political parties.

Hearing him, Justice Bagchi initially questioned the effectiveness of regulatory measures when a candidate's friend can incur expenses on behalf of the candidate and cite constitutional right to freedom of expression against restrictions.

"You see the US elections...there are limits to spending by party in the friends of candidate A...let's say an Indian American PAC will fund you, where is the limit? Your political party may be barred, but friends of Mr Bhushan, they will fund...say we put the embargo that no funding beyond X limit...You will come before us, say Article 19(1)(a) - freedom of expression through material support. How will we control that?", the judge remarked.

At this point, Bhushan stressed on the gravity of the problem by referring to the Electoral Bonds case (where unregulated election expenditures were flagged) and urged that unregulated election spending must stop. Ultimately, the bench issued notice.

Briefly put, the PIL has been filed seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(1) of the Constitution and protection of free and fair elections. It claims that the growing influence of money power in elections has gravely undermined electoral fairness, equality of political opportunity and the representative character of parliamentary democracy.

The petition refers to Section 77(1) of the Representation of People Act read with Rule 90 of Conduct of Election Rules to urge that strict caps on election spending exist for candidates, but not for political parties.

It further asserts that many expert bodies, including the Law Commission, have highlighted the legal vacuum and recommended regulation or ceilings on political party expenditure. "However, no corrective legislative or executive action has been taken."

The petitioners also claim that as per comparative practices across other jurisdictions, regulation of election expenditure by political parties is "feasible and necessary". In the United Kingdom, for example, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 imposes limits on campaign expenses by political parties and provides for penal action in case of violation.

The plea further argues that unregulated party spending has led to "presidentialization" of Indian elections, where campaigns are focused on projecting a single leader through massive amounts of money. The same is contrary to the constitutional design of a parliamentary democracy established based on the Westminster model under the Constitution, it says.

Case Title: COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 223/2026