Author: Tejika Jitendra Bhandari, M.K.E.S. College of Law
1. To the Point
India is the world’s largest democracy, where citizens exercise their political power primarily through elections. Every election gives people an opportunity to choose their representatives and decide the direction in which the country should move. However, the success of a democracy cannot be measured only by the number of people who vote. It also depends on whether elections are fair, political parties are accountable, candidates are suitable for public office, and voters have access to reliable information.
In recent years, electoral transparency has become an important subject of political and legal discussion in India. Issues such as undisclosed political donations, candidates facing criminal proceedings, the use of money in election campaigns, and the influence of powerful interests have raised questions about the fairness of the electoral process.
One major development was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India in 2024, which declared the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional. The judgment strengthened the principle that voters have a right to know about political funding. This decision demonstrated that transparency in political finance is not merely a matter of public preference; it is closely connected with constitutional rights and democratic accountability.
Another continuing concern is the criminalisation of politics. When individuals facing serious criminal charges enter electoral politics, citizens must be able to distinguish between allegations, pending trials and proven guilt. A criminal accusation alone does not establish that a person is guilty. At the same time, political parties and voters have legitimate reasons to demand accountability and examine a candidate’s background before an election.
Electoral reform, therefore, requires a balanced approach. India must protect the constitutional rights of candidates while ensuring that voters receive meaningful information. The Election Commission of India, Parliament, political parties, the judiciary and citizens all have important roles in achieving this objective.
The central question is whether India’s existing legal framework is sufficient to ensure that political power is exercised transparently and responsibly.
2. Use of Legal Jargon
Understanding electoral transparency requires familiarity with certain legal terms.
Constitutional accountability means that public authorities and political institutions must act within the limits imposed by the Constitution and remain answerable for their decisions.
Electoral transparency refers to openness in the election process, including information about candidates, political donations, campaign expenditure and the functioning of political institutions.
Criminalisation of politics describes the growing concern that individuals accused or convicted of criminal offences may gain political influence or enter elected office. The term should not be used to treat every accused person as guilty.
Right to information is the right of citizens to access information necessary for meaningful participation in public affairs. In the context of elections, the Supreme Court has recognised that a voter’s right to know about candidates is connected with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Free and fair elections are elections conducted without improper influence, coercion, fraud or unlawful interference. They require both a fair voting process and conditions that allow voters to make informed choices.
Presumption of innocence is the principle that a person is treated as innocent unless guilt is established according to law. This principle is particularly important when discussing candidates facing criminal proceedings.
Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of government action and legislation. It allows courts to invalidate measures that violate the Constitution.
Writ petition means a petition filed before a competent court seeking constitutional or other legally authorised relief. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, while Article 226 gives High Courts broad writ jurisdiction.
Constitutional morality refers to respect for the values, principles and institutional arrangements established by the Constitution, including liberty, equality, accountability and the rule of law.
These concepts show that electoral reform is not limited to election administration. It involves constitutional rights, criminal justice, political ethics and the responsibility of public institutions.
3. The Proof
3.1 Electoral Bonds and the Question of Political Funding
Political parties require money to organise campaigns, communicate with voters, maintain offices and carry out political activities. Donations are therefore a normal feature of democratic politics. The problem arises when the source of political funding cannot be adequately examined by the public.
The Electoral Bond Scheme was introduced in 2018 as a mechanism for making donations to eligible political parties through banking channels. Supporters argued that the system could reduce reliance on cash and encourage formal financial transactions. Critics, however, raised concerns about donor anonymity, unequal access to information and the possibility of disproportionate corporate influence.
On 15 February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. The Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme and relevant legal amendments, finding that the non-disclosure of political funding information violated the constitutional right to information under Article 19(1)(a). It also held the removal of restrictions on unlimited corporate political contributions to be arbitrary under Article 14. <Cite refs={[“turn598175search1″,”turn598175search3”]}/>
The judgment was important because it connected political funding with the voter’s ability to make an informed electoral choice. If citizens cannot reasonably assess the financial interests supporting a political party, their understanding of the political process may remain incomplete.
Following the judgment, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India to disclose electoral bond information to the Election Commission of India, which was required to publish the information. The Court’s subsequent order in March 2024 reinforced the requirement for disclosure. <Cite refs={[“turn598175search6″,”turn598175search9”]}/>
This development does not mean that every political donation is improper or that every donor expects a favour in return. Rather, it demonstrates that political funding must be subject to appropriate legal safeguards and public scrutiny.
3.2 Criminalisation of Politics
A second major concern is the participation of candidates with criminal cases in electoral politics. The issue is serious because elected representatives are entrusted with legislative authority and public resources.
However, legal accuracy is essential. A person facing an allegation is not equivalent to a person convicted by a court. Some criminal cases may be politically motivated, while others may involve serious and credible allegations. The law must distinguish between these circumstances instead of treating every case in the same way.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, establishes rules concerning disqualification from membership of legislatures. Section 8 provides for disqualification in specified circumstances involving convictions for particular offences. The precise legal consequences depend on the offence, the sentence and the applicable statutory provisions.
The broader challenge is that criminal proceedings may take considerable time. Delayed trials can create uncertainty for both the accused and the electorate. Speedy and fair trials, effective investigation, transparent disclosure of candidate information and consistent enforcement of election law are therefore important reforms.
Political parties also carry responsibility. They should explain their decisions when selecting candidates facing serious criminal charges and should not treat electoral success as the only measure of a candidate’s suitability.
3.3 The Role of the Election Commission
The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution. It supervises, directs and controls elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President, subject to the constitutional framework.
Its responsibilities include administering elections, enforcing applicable election rules and taking steps to maintain a level playing field. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot independently solve every problem involving political finance or criminal proceedings. Many reforms require legislation, cooperation from investigative and regulatory bodies, and compliance by political parties.
Voters also need accessible information. Candidate affidavits, declared assets and liabilities, and disclosures concerning criminal cases can assist citizens in evaluating candidates. Such information must be presented accurately and understood in its proper legal context.
3.4 Money Power and Democratic Equality
A democracy promises political equality, but the influence of money can make political competition unequal. Candidates and parties with substantial financial resources may have greater access to advertising, publicity and campaign infrastructure.
Campaign expenditure rules and disclosure requirements are intended to limit improper practices and improve accountability. Their effectiveness depends on accurate reporting, monitoring and meaningful consequences for violations.
Transparency should not be confused with a complete ban on political donations. A workable system must allow legitimate political participation while preventing unlawful funding, concealment and undue influence. The aim is to make political finance traceable, regulated and open to appropriate scrutiny.
3.5 Citizens as Participants in Democracy
Electoral reform is not solely the responsibility of courts and government institutions. Citizens also influence political accountability through their voting decisions and public participation.
Voters should examine candidates’ records, read credible reports, distinguish verified facts from rumours and avoid judging a candidate solely by party identity or campaign promises. Political awareness is especially important in an environment where misleading information can spread rapidly through social media.
A responsible electorate strengthens democracy by demanding evidence, asking questions and holding representatives accountable after elections. Voting is an essential democratic right, but informed participation extends beyond election day.
4. Abstract
This article examines electoral transparency and the criminalisation of politics in India from a constitutional and democratic perspective. It considers the relationship between political funding, candidate disclosures, criminal proceedings and the accountability of elected representatives. The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India serves as a significant example of judicial intervention to protect the voter’s right to information.
The article also discusses the role of Article 19(1)(a), Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the broader framework of electoral governance. It highlights the need to balance transparency with the presumption of innocence and the procedural rights of candidates facing criminal allegations.
The central argument is that fair elections require more than the formal conduct of voting. They depend on accessible information, transparent political finance, effective enforcement of election law, timely judicial proceedings and responsible political leadership. Electoral reform must be pursued through constitutional methods that preserve both democratic accountability and individual rights.
Keywords: Electoral transparency, political funding, criminalisation of politics, right to information, Indian Constitution, Election Commission of India, judicial review and electoral reform.
5. Case Laws
5.1 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)
This is one of the most significant recent judgments concerning electoral transparency in India. The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments governing political contributions.
The Court held that anonymous political funding under the challenged scheme infringed the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a). It also found the removal of the corporate contribution limit to be arbitrary under Article 14. The judgment required disclosure of electoral bond information and brought the scheme to an end. <Cite refs={[“turn598175search1″,”turn598175search3”]}/>
Relevance: The judgment confirms that political funding cannot be separated from a citizen’s ability to make an informed electoral decision.
5.2 Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court considered whether voters were entitled to information about candidates contesting elections.
The Court recognised the importance of disclosing relevant information, including candidates’ criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications. This disclosure enables voters to evaluate candidates before exercising their franchise.
Relevance: The decision established an important foundation for transparency in candidate selection and electoral participation.
5.3 People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
The Supreme Court examined the legal framework governing the disclosure of information by election candidates. It affirmed the significance of the voter’s right to information as part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The case reinforced the principle that meaningful voting requires access to relevant information about the individuals seeking public office.
Relevance: It strengthened the constitutional basis for candidate disclosures and informed electoral choice.
5.4 Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Supreme Court considered Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had provided a special protection concerning the disqualification of sitting legislators convicted of certain offences.
The Court declared Section 8(4) unconstitutional. The decision reinforced the application of statutory disqualification provisions to sitting members of Parliament and state legislatures in accordance with the law.
Relevance: The judgment is important in discussions about criminalisation of politics because it emphasises that elected representatives are subject to the legal consequences of qualifying criminal convictions.
5.5 Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)
The Supreme Court considered the issue of candidates facing criminal cases and the responsibilities of political parties in disclosing relevant information.
The Court directed political parties and candidates to publiciseinformation concerning pending criminal cases in the manner specified in its directions. It also emphasised the need for Parliament to consider appropriate legislation to address criminalisation of politics.
The Court did not create a blanket disqualification for every person facing a criminal case. The distinction between an accusation and a conviction remains essential.
Relevance: The judgment highlights the importance of public disclosure and political accountability while recognising the limits of judicial intervention.
5.6 Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014)
The Supreme Court examined the question of appointing ministers who faced criminal charges. It declined to create an automatic constitutional disqualification merely because a person was facing criminal proceedings, while emphasising the importance of constitutional morality and responsible governance.
Relevance: The judgment illustrates the balance between the legal powers of political executives and the ethical standards expected of those holding public office.
Taken together, these judgments demonstrate that the judiciary has played an important role in strengthening electoral transparency, protecting voters’ rights and addressing concerns about criminalisation of politics. However, court decisions alone cannot replace effective legislation, institutional accountability and responsible political conduct.
Q5. Can a candidate be disqualified merely because a criminal case is pending against them?
No, not automatically in every case. Disqualification depends on the applicable legal provisions. A pending criminal case is not equivalent to a conviction, and the presumption of innocence must be respected.
Q6. What is the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring fair elections?
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission supervises, directs and controls elections within its constitutional jurisdiction and works to ensure compliance with election laws.
Q7. How does Article 19(1)(a) protect voters?
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to include voters’ right to obtain relevant information about election candidates.
Q5. Can a candidate be disqualified merely because a criminal case is pending against them?
No, not automatically in every case. Disqualification depends on the applicable legal provisions. A pending criminal case is not equivalent to a conviction, and the presumption of innocence must be respected.
Q6. What is the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring fair elections?
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission supervises, directs and controls elections within its constitutional jurisdiction and works to ensure compliance with election laws.
Q7. How does Article 19(1)(a) protect voters?
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to include voters’ right to obtain relevant information about election candidates.
