SC Issues Notice to Centre, ECI on PIL Seeking Stricter Regulation of Political Parties

A PIL Raises Questions About the Accountability of Political Parties

In a significant development for electoral governance, the Supreme Court of India issued notice on September 12, 2025, to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. The petition seeks the framing of comprehensive rules for the registration, oversight, and functioning of political parties across the country.

The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka Bagchi, asked both respondents to file their responses within four weeks. The court stated that it will examine whether legislative action is required to “ensure transparency, curb criminal influence, and enforce secularism in politics.” The proceedings signal the judiciary’s concern about the increasing opacity in party financing, candidate selection, and political functioning.

The PIL argues that existing laws, particularly the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, are inadequate to prevent the misuse of political platforms for personal, criminal, and sectarian agendas. By seeking judicial intervention, the petitioner is pushing for a codified structure that holds parties accountable in line with democratic principles.

Why Regulating Political Parties Is a Constitutional Imperative

Political parties are the backbone of representative democracy. They mobilize public opinion, select candidates, and form governments. Yet, despite their centrality, parties are governed by limited statutory provisions and wide discretion, particularly concerning internal governance, funding, and candidate nomination processes.

The PIL’s thrust is that this regulatory vacuum enables political actors to pursue self-serving agendas without adequate scrutiny. It highlights concerns over:

• Opaque funding sources: Political donations often escape public oversight, with shell companies and cash contributions obscuring their origin.

• Criminalization of politics: Multiple reports over the years have flagged how individuals with serious criminal charges contest elections and even occupy public office.

• Communal and sectarian appeals: The absence of enforceable norms allows parties to exploit religion, caste, and regional identity for electoral gains.

The petitioner urges that political parties, as instruments of governance and policy formation, should be bound by standards similar to those applicable to corporate or charitable entities. The court’s inquiry into this matter reflects a deeper constitutional debate—whether parties, as unelected bodies wielding public power, should be subject to structured accountability mechanisms.

The Bench’s Observations: A Move Toward Institutional Accountability

During the hearing, the court’s pointed observation—“Should legislative action be undertaken to ensure transparency, curb criminal influence and enforce secularism in politics?”—demonstrates a readiness to address long-standing democratic deficits.

Justice Surya Kant’s remarks underscored that political parties, though private entities, influence public administration and must therefore be answerable to legal standards that protect fundamental rights and constitutional governance.

The court’s direction to seek responses within four weeks signals the possibility of framing judicial guidelines or recommending legislative reform. While Article 32 allows citizens to seek judicial remedies for violation of fundamental rights, the regulation of political parties has historically been treated as a matter for Parliament or the Election Commission to address. This case may challenge that assumption.

Existing Legal Framework and Its Shortcomings

Political parties in India are presently governed by a patchwork of legal provisions, statutory mandates, and voluntary codes of conduct:

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA): Governs electoral procedures but offers limited control over internal party governance or finances.

• The Income Tax Act and Companies Act: Offer indirect regulation of donations and corporate contributions, yet enforcement remains weak.

• The Election Symbols Order, 1968: Lays down recognition criteria but does not address ideological commitments or governance standards.

• Voluntary codes of conduct: Issued by the ECI, these lack binding force and often fail to prevent unethical practices.

The PIL’s demand for structured rules reflects the inadequacy of these existing frameworks, especially when confronted with political corruption and criminalization.

Lessons from Judicial Precedents

The PIL’s push for regulation aligns with earlier Supreme Court observations about electoral integrity and the need for institutional reform. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002), the court mandated disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets, and liabilities of candidates, recognizing voters’ right to informed choice as rooted in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Similarly, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003), the Court emphasized that free and fair elections are essential to democracy and must be shielded from manipulation by money and muscle power.

However, these judgments focused on candidates rather than political parties as entities. The present PIL aims to extend these principles to the organizational level, marking a potential expansion of the Court’s democratic accountability doctrine.

Potential Impact on Electoral Governance

Should the Supreme Court lean toward stricter regulation, it may lay the groundwork for several reforms:

1. Mandatory Registration Standards:Political parties may be required to adhere to governance norms similar to trusts or cooperatives, including audited accounts, public disclosures, and conflict-of-interest rules.

2. Funding Transparency:All donations above a threshold could be traceable, with contributions from opaque sources prohibited. Real-time disclosure of donations may be mandated.

3. Criminal Record Screening:Parties may be barred from fielding candidates with serious criminal charges or required to provide full disclosure with public notice periods.

4. Internal Democracy:Parties could be required to conduct regular internal elections and publish organizational structures, limiting dynastic and personality-centric control.

5. Enforcement Mechanisms:Violations may invite penalties such as derecognition, fines, or disqualification, depending on the gravity of misconduct.

These reforms could shift the balance of power, compelling parties to prioritize governance and ethical standards over populist or sectarian mobilization.

Challenges and Concerns

While reform is widely discussed, implementing comprehensive rules faces significant hurdles:

• Political Resistance: Parties may perceive regulation as an intrusion into their autonomy, especially those benefiting from current loopholes.

• Federal Complexities: Uniform rules may clash with state-specific political dynamics, raising jurisdictional issues.

• Defining Reasonableness: Questions remain about what qualifies as “transparent,” “criminal,” or “secular”—terms that courts must interpret carefully to avoid unintended overreach.

• Enforcement Capacity: Even robust rules may fail without effective monitoring bodies empowered to investigate and penalize violations.

These challenges will likely shape how far-reaching any judicial recommendations or legislative reforms can be.

Implications for Democracy and Public Trust

At its core, this case confronts the tension between electoral freedom and democratic integrity. Political parties are indispensable to representative governance, but unchecked power threatens constitutional ideals. A framework that holds parties accountable without stifling political diversity would strengthen India’s democracy.

By pushing for structured oversight, the PIL places public trust at the center of the debate. Voters, long alienated by opaque campaign financing and criminalized political spaces, could gain access to institutional tools to hold parties accountable.

However, the challenge will be crafting reforms that safeguard pluralism while curbing misuse. Judicial guidance, coupled with legislative will, may mark the first step toward a more transparent and principled political process.

What Comes Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice is only the beginning. The government and the Election Commission must respond within the stipulated four weeks, after which the court will deliberate on whether to prescribe guidelines or urge Parliament to enact legislation.

This case has the potential to redefine how democracy is practiced in India—by ensuring that political parties, as custodians of public will, operate within transparent, accountable, and constitutionally aligned frameworks.

As the proceedings unfold, constitutional experts, policymakers, and civil society will closely watch whether this case catalyzes long-pending reforms or reinforces existing ambiguities.