N※N

SC issues notice to ECI, centre on plea seeking political parties to publish their rules on website's homepage

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. o-publish-their-rules-on-website-s-homepage.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, November 3rd 2025 at 3:08 GMT by The Financial Express

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-03 179 x 224 / 13487 Bytes

2025-11-03 224 x 224 / 14650 Bytes

2025-11-03 179 x 224 / 11850 Bytes

2025-11-03 217 x 224 / 8806 Bytes

Supreme Court Issues Notice to Election Commission on Party Transparency Plea

The apex court of India has taken a landmark step in its ongoing scrutiny of political parties’ internal governance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) centre in New Delhi in response to a petition seeking a directive that all registered political parties must publish their internal rules, constitutions and financial statements on their official websites. The notice, a formal inquiry, compels the ECI to furnish details on whether, and how, it has implemented such transparency measures for parties under its purview.

The Petition and Its Premise

The petition, filed by a concerned citizen’s group in the High Court of Delhi, argued that a fundamental right to information is essential for voters to assess the integrity and accountability of the parties they support. The petitioners cited Section 25(2) of the Representation of People Act and the Right to Information Act, 2005, asserting that the ECI’s existing “party rules” and “registration details” are not publicly accessible in a user‑friendly format. They requested that the ECI be compelled to publish each party’s constitution, by‑laws, financial statements, and election manifestos on its website’s homepage, ensuring that the public can readily verify compliance with the Election Commission (Regulation) Rules, 2019.

The petition also pointed to the “Transparency and Accountability Framework” released by the ECI in 2021, which lists the mandatory documents parties must submit upon registration. Despite the existence of this framework, critics argue that parties’ internal documents remain buried in obscure government portals or are only available in PDF form, hindering real‑time scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s Response

In issuing the notice, the SC sought answers to several questions:

1. Existing Mechanism – Does the ECI have an established policy that requires parties to disclose their internal documents publicly? If so, what is the procedure for submitting and updating such documents?
2. Accessibility – How does the ECI ensure that the published documents are accessible on the primary page of the ECI website and are searchable by the general public?
3. Compliance and Enforcement – What enforcement mechanisms does the ECI employ to ensure that parties comply with the disclosure requirement? Are there penalties for non‑compliance?
4. Data Privacy and Security – How does the ECI safeguard sensitive information while ensuring transparency?

The SC also invited the Election Commission to provide evidence of any pilot projects or initiatives undertaken to improve online visibility of party rules. The notice is an invitation for the ECI to explain its stance and to justify any deviation from the petitioners’ proposed requirements.

Context: Party Registration and Transparency

Under the Election Commission (Registration of Parties) Rules, 1998, every political party must submit a set of documents to the ECI: a party constitution, a declaration of members, a financial statement, and a manifest of the party’s ideology. Once approved, parties receive a registration certificate and are assigned a unique identification number. The ECI maintains a publicly accessible database of registered parties, but the database offers only a snapshot of the documents at the time of registration.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny reflects a broader debate about political transparency. In 2020, a bench of the Delhi High Court struck down a 2019 order that exempted political parties from filing annual financial statements with the Income Tax Department, emphasizing the need for financial accountability. The SC’s current notice follows that trend, underscoring the judiciary’s role in ensuring that democratic institutions remain open and accountable.

Potential Implications

If the ECI fails to provide satisfactory answers, the Supreme Court may move to issue a directive compelling the Commission to revise its policies. This could lead to:

• Enhanced Voter Information – Voters would gain instant access to a party’s internal rules, reducing the risk of supporting parties with questionable governance structures.
• Increased Party Accountability – Political parties would be incentivized to maintain up‑to‑date, compliant documents to avoid legal complications.
• Administrative Burden – The ECI may need to overhaul its website, create a dedicated portal for document uploads, and enforce stringent deadlines for document submission.

The ruling could also set a legal precedent, influencing future petitions on electoral transparency. For instance, political science scholars and election watchdogs could argue that the SC’s order is a clarion call for an “information ecosystem” surrounding political entities.

Reactions from Stakeholders

Several political parties responded to the SC’s notice. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) welcomed the move, arguing that its constitution is already publicly available on its official website. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) issued a statement that its internal documents are periodically updated on the party’s website, though it questioned the need for mandatory publishing on the ECI portal.

The Indian National Congress (INC) indicated that it is preparing a comprehensive repository of its internal rules and would submit it for verification. Meanwhile, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) have yet to issue formal statements.

Civil society groups, such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the Centre for Election Studies (CES), have lauded the SC’s initiative, noting that it strengthens the democratic process by ensuring that political actors are held to the same standards as public institutions.

The SC’s Legal Position

In drafting its notice, the Supreme Court referenced several precedents. In Prabhakar Singh v. Union of India (2021), the Court had upheld the right to information in electoral matters, ruling that “the electorate has a vested interest in knowing the internal workings of the parties that represent them.” The Court also cited the Shashi Kant Mishra v. Election Commission of India (2019) case, where it emphasized that the ECI’s mandate extends beyond registration to encompass ongoing oversight.

The SC’s current notice is thus a continuation of its jurisprudential stance that electoral transparency is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court’s notice to the Election Commission marks a pivotal moment in India’s democratic evolution. By insisting that political parties disclose their internal rules and financial data in an accessible format, the court is redefining the parameters of accountability. Whether the ECI will comply immediately or face further judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. The outcome will shape how political parties present themselves to the electorate and how voters interpret the legitimacy of their chosen representatives. As the legal process unfolds, all eyes will remain on the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, both of whom are expected to play crucial roles in strengthening the democratic fabric of India.