While issuing directions to curb the circulation of black money during elections, the Supreme Court took note of statistics furnished by the Election Commission of India on seizures and FIRs registered during the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and State Assembly elections held between 2019 and 2025.

The data was placed before the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in affidavits filed by the Election Commission, in an hearing an appeal arising out of a 2015 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the respondent. The respondent, Prathik Parasrampuria, was a candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha bye-election from Bellary, and was alleged to have hoarded a large amount of cash for bribing the voters.

The affidavit filed by the Commission reveals that in respect of the FIRs registered during 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Gujarat (35,144) tops the list of States. This is followed by Uttar Pradesh (19,209); Maharashtra (18,928); West Bengal (17,493); Rajasthan (8,652); Telangana (8,550); Andhra Pradesh (6,489); Tamil Nadu (5,106); Punjab (4,869); and Karnataka (4,609).

For the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Gujarat (52,820) again tops the list, followed by Maharashtra (29,545); West Bengal (27,461); Uttar Pradesh (23,645); Telangana (23,087); Rajasthan (12,746); Karnataka (7,588); Tamil Nadu (5,948); and Andhra Pradesh (5,043).

For the State Assembly elections held between 2019 and 2025, the data shows Telangana's 2023 election recorded the highest number of FIRs (33,496); followed by Gujarat's 2022 election (30,253); Maharashtra's 2024 election (26,302); West Bengal's 2021 election (25,061); Uttar Pradesh's 2022 election (20,994); and Maharashtra's 2019 election (12,464). Rajasthan's 2023 election (12,204); Tamil Nadu's 2021 election (10,756); Karnataka's 2023 election (8,440); Punjab's 2022 election (3,834); and Kerala's 2021 election (3,087) recorded comparatively lower figures.

The Election Commission's supplementary affidavit filed on November 15, 2025 dealt with the outcome of these FIRs. Out of 1,44,030 FIRs filed during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, only 1,348 were under investigation as on the date of affidavit, while 26,990 had ended in closure reports. In 37,215 cases, conviction was made while in 36,312 the accused persons were acquitted, and 44,387 cases were still pending trial.

The data of the 2024 Lok Sabha election revealed that of 3,87,430 FIRs registered, only 7,930 were under investigation while 76,987 resulted in closure reports, and conviction was made in 1,66,044 cases. The Commission's affidavit describes this conviction rate of 42.9% (1,66,044 out of 3,87,430) as a “significant improvement.” In 24,950, the accused persons were acquitted while cases remained pending trial in 1,06,841.

Out of 2,01,894 FIRs registered during the State Assembly elections held between 2019 and 2025, only 4,665 remained under investigation while 53,126 had ended in closure reports. Conviction was made in 40,155 and accused persons were acquitted in 25,980. The trial remains pending in 79,148 cases.

While perusing the data, the Court also flagged the Commission's concern regarding the unilateral withdrawal of election-related prosecutions by the government after the change in the ruling dispensation. For this, reference was made to the Commission's communication to Chief Secretaries stating that such withdrawal “sends a wrong signal that miscreants may indulge in any electoral malpractices and offences at elections with impunity as those cases may be withdrawn later.”

Amicus curiae (Dr.) Swapnil Tripathi submitted a note on 'Global Practices in Election Matter' before the Court, comparing the position across sixteen jurisdictions including Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, and Indonesia. It flagged that in most jurisdictions, the decisions to prosecute or withdraw election-offence cases vest solely with public prosecutors without any role for the election management body.

Considering the suggestions made by the amici and the Election Commission, the Supreme Court issued several directions to curb the circulation of black money during elections. Relying on State of Kerala v K Ajith and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India, the Court made High Court's approval mandatory before any withdrawal of prosecution against a candidate. On pendency reflected in the data, the concerned courts are directed to make all efforts to bring cases to their logical conclusion with utmost expedition.

Accepting the ECI's suggestion to mandate HC's sanction to withdraw prosecutions, the Supreme Court observed :

"Undoubtedly, this suggestion appears to be a great leap in favour of impartiality; in effect, this would place candidates for elections at the same pedestal as elected MPs and MLAs in relation to criminal prosecutions against them. To our mind, this indicates to candidates and also prospective candidates that indulging in unsavoury practices is not a matter of triviality. Once prosecution is initiated against them, change in political dispensation simpliciter will not let them of the hook. In other words, a Constitutional democracy expects from its representatives. The same decree of moral rectitude and uprightness."

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India and the respective governments to file a compliance report on or before November 18, 2026.

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v Prathik Parasrampuria

Coram : Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Click Here To Read/Download Order