We believe legal advocacy for Political and Electoral Reforms is as essential as any other research. Our commitment to this sphere has resulted in us filing numerous complaints and PILs with Central Information Commission, Supreme Court/ High Court as well as other Central and State agencies. This section documents all details of previous and ongoing RTI disclosures and PILs.
1) ADR's plea in SC to bring Political Parties under RTI Supreme Court
Urging the Supreme Court to declare all the national and regional political parties as "public authorities" and bring them within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and RTI activist Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a petition in the Apex Court on 19th May 2015. The first hearing in the case took place on 7th July 2015 wherein the Apex Court admitted the plea and sought responses from all the national political parties, Election Commission and the Central government within six-week. To its counter, Government of India had filed its affidavit stating that they do not come under RTI Act. Central Information Commission (CIC), on June 3, 2013, had declared six national political parties, namely the INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP to be “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, on a complaint filed by ADR and Mr. Agrawal but none of the parties complied with the order. Ultimately on 16th March 2015, the CIC said that the RTI Act does not provide the Commission with ample powers to deal with the cases of contempt and non-compliance.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
19th May 2015 | |
21st August 2015 |
2) ADR's petition challenging Finance Act, 2017; Electoral Bonds and Removal of company's limit to donate: W.P (C) 880/2017 Supreme Court
This petition challenges the Finance Act, 2017 which was enacted as a money bill which introduced the electoral bond scheme for the purpose of electoral funding. The Act has also removed the previous limit of 7.5% of the company’s average three-year net profit for political donations. A company is no longer required to name the political parties to which such contributions are made. The donors’ name is also not revealed to the public. These amendments will result in opaqueness, heighten the odds of conflict of interest and also drastically increase black money and corruption. It will also lead to the creation of shell companies and rise of benami transactions to channelize the undocumented money into the political and electoral process in India.
Current Status of the matter:
On 5th March, 2019 ADR and Common Cause filed the first application for stay against the sale/purchase of electoral bonds for Lok Sabha 2019 elections. In the stay application ADR had contended that enormous amounts of corporate funding would be received by political parties during the general elections and this would play a critical role in the elections. In response to ADR’s application, the Supreme Court in its interim order dated 12th April, 2019 directed all political parties to submit details of donations received via Electoral Bonds to the Election Commission of India in a sealed cover on or before 30th May 2019.
On 29th November 2019, ADR and Common Cause filed a second application for stay against the sale/purchase of Electoral bonds to bring on record certain vital documents which have surfaced recently and have a strong bearing on the instant case.
On 26th October, 2020 ADR and Common Cause filed a third application for an urgent listing of the petition before the Supreme Court of India. The application for an urgent hearing was filed because;
- ADR's petition was last heard by the Supreme Court on 20-01-2020 and hasn't been listed since then, i.e., for the last 9 months, even though very significant questions concerning democratic functioning of the country are raised in the instant matter which requires urgent adjudication.
- Right before the Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections, the State Bank of India, in the XIV Phase of sale, issued Electoral Bonds through its 29 Authorized branches w.e.f. 19.10.2020 to 28.10.2020.
- Whereas the Electoral Bond Scheme dated 02-01-2018 clearly stipulates sale of electoral bonds in January, April, July and October months of each year; however, the window was not opened in April and July, but was opened in October'20, right before the Bihar Legislative Elections, 2020.
On 9th March, 2021, ADR and Common Cause filed a fourth application for stay on any further purchase of Electoral Bonds before the upcoming state elections in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry and Assam as it would further increase the illegal, illicit and anonymous political funding.
On 15th November, 2022, ADR filed an additional affidavit in the Supreme Court against amendment dated 07-11-2022 to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 that allowed an additional period of 15 days for sale of EBs which shall be specified by the Central Government in the year of General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of States and Union territories with Legislature. The affidavit submitted that the amendment has been done by the government to ensure that more and more donations can be made in a completely opaque manner before state elections as well.
On 1st December, 2022, ADR filed a supplementary affidavit in the Supreme Court against the amendment dated 07-11-2022 to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 that was made by the government while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) period was in force owing to the 2022 Assembly elections in the States of Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. The supplementary affidavit was also filed to bring on record some deeply shocking revelations made from RTI responses from the Ministry of Finance. In addition the supplementary affidavit also revealed that the subordinate officials from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice had warned the senior officials of the Finance Ministry against the amendment.
Next date of hearing: The matter is likely to be listed on 11th July, 2023. The SC bench will also decide whether the petition should be referred to a Constitutional Bench.
Related News:
- Absence of disclosures and poor enforcement of transparency leaves gaping hole in India’s electoral bond scheme (Financial Express)
- Limit political donations by companies: Ex-chief of law commission (Times Of India)
- Electoral Bonds: Not a single bond of Rs 1000 & Rs 10000 sold even in July (Factly)
- Elections Are Coming – and There’s a Problem with Electoral Bonds (The Quint)
- The Problem With the Supreme Court Order on Electoral Bonds (The Quint)
- Experts Slam Modi Govt’s Reply to Electoral Bond Challenge in SC (Bloomberg|Quint)
- India now has over 2,500 political parties, some suspected of ‘black money’ operations (The Print)
- Supreme Court Posts Electoral Bonds Case To December 6 (Live Law)
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
4th September 2017 | |
Note on Electoral Bonds And Opacity In Political Funding NEW! | 9th March 2021 |
3rd October 2017 | |
Counter affidavit on behalf Ministry of Finance, Income Tax(L&R)(Respondent No.1) | 10th January 2018 |
Counter affidavit on behalf of Ministry of Law and Justice (Respondent No.2) | March 2018 |
5th March 2019 | |
15th March & 26th May 2017 | |
27th March 2019 | |
Counter Affidavit on behalf of Ministry of Finance (Respondent No.1) | 1st April 2019 |
12th April 2019 | |
29th November 2019 | |
26th October 2020 | |
9th March, 2021 | |
Fifth Application for an urgent listing of the petition before the Supreme Court of India | 23rd August, 2021 |
Supreme Court Order NEW! | 14th October, 2022 |
16th November, 2022 | |
1st December, 2022 | |
3rd February, 2020 |
3)ADR's petition challenging amendments to FCRA,1976 and 2010Supreme Court
ADR's petition challenges the amendments made with retrospective effect in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 through the Finance Act, 2016 and Finance Act, 2018, which was passed as a Money Bill.These amendments were seen as an attempt to overturn the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014 holding the two major political parties, BJP and INC, guilty of accepting foreign funding. The Delhi High Court ordered the Central Government and Election Commission of India to take action against BJP and INC within six months.These amendments to the FCRA law have opened doors to unlimited political donations from foreign companies and also legitimizing financial contributions received from foreign sources. The petition was necessitated due to the intransigence of the Central Government in complying with the Delhi HC order of March 2014 and instead trying to get BJP and INC off the hook by amending the FCRA 2010 in 2016 and subsequently the FCRA 1976 in March 2018.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
April 2018 |
4) W.P (C) No. 1382/2019: Petition on voter discrepancies and mechanism of declaration of election resultSupreme Court
On 4th November, 2019, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India to seek directions from the Supreme Court to order the Election Commission of India to completely stop the practice of announcing election results based on provisional and estimated data, prior to an actual and accurate reconciliation of data. Even for Lok Sabha 2019 Elections, the Election Commission had announced election results in all constituencies on 23rd May 2019, based on estimated data. This is verified by Election Commission’s Press Note dated 01 June 2019 that stated “…the final data on votes counted has been made available within a few days of declaration of results……”
In addition, ADR also seeks a direction from Supreme Court to the ECI to evolve an efficient, transparent, rational and robust procedure/mechanism by creating a separate department/grievance cell for investigation of discrepancies in election data and for responding to the elector’s queries on the same. Through this petition, ADR is not challenging or questioning the final result of 2019 General Elections or the election process in the country. However, the issues and irregularities that arose in the conduct of the election/result of 2019 General Elections have been cited as arguments for effectuating free and fair elections, the survival of democracy and enforcement of fundamental rights. Based on our petition, on 13th December, 2019, the Supreme Court of India had issued notices to the Election Commission of India and Union of India.
Current Status of the matter:
On 27th February, 2020 an application was filed against the ‘mysterious rush and urgency’ shown by the Election Commission of India by destroying the VVPAT slips used in 2019 Lok Sabha elections in just four months after the results were declared. This was in contravention of the rules prescribed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 94 (b) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 states that, “the used or printed slips in any election shall be retained for one year from the date of declaration of the results of the election. and shall thereafter be destroyed. ADR’s petition has been pending in the Supreme Court since November, 2019. Therefore, an application in the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India to;
- On 27th February, 2020 ADR filed an application in the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India to;
- Not to destroy or dispose of VVPAT paper slips generated in any election in the last one year and to retain the same at least for a period of one year in consonance with the rules of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961;
- To retain all other documents pertaining to the 17th Lok Sabha elections held in April, 2019.
Next date of hearing: Matter is likely to be listed on 10th February,2021.
Related News
EVM Vote Count Mismatch In 370+ Seats and EC Refuses to Explain (The Quint)
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
November 2019 | |
November 2019 | |
Application filed in the Supreme Court against disposal of VVPAT slips | 27th February 2020 |
5) Election Expenditure Of Political Parties
On a petition filed by ADR, the Delhi High Court issued notices to the Government of India and the Election Commission to monitor election expenditure of political parties.Delhi High Court
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
20th May 2014 | |
7th Jan 2016 | |
16th April 2018 | |
25th April 2018 |
6) FCRA Tribunal Case
In the petition,the petitioners have sought constitution of quasi-judicial tribunal, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to administer enforcement of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), in order to avoid the misuse of FCRA.
Current Status: On 12th December 2022, the judgment was reserved by the High court.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
September 2015 | |
11th July 2016 |
1) Disclosure of Candidate Background (Criminal, Educational & Financial) to Election Commission. Supreme Court
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR in December 1999 culminated into a landmark Supreme Court Judgment on May 2, 2002 and an ordinance on Electoral Reforms promulgated in August 2002. The Ordinance was subsequently passed as a Bill in December 2002. It partially overturned the May 2, 2002 Supreme Court Judgment, requiring disclosure of criminal background, but not of financial and educational background. ADR and two other petitioners challenged this Act. The Supreme Court, in a second landmark Judgment on March 13, 2003, struck down the Bill as unconstitutional and restored its earlier order. Subsequently, the Election Commission issued orders implementing the following judgments:
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
Delhi High Court's Judgment. AIR(2001) Delhi 126,2000 SCC Online DEL 836 | 2nd November 2000 |
Supreme Court's Judgment. (2002) 5 SCC 294,AIR 2002 SC 2112 | 2nd May 2002 |
Supreme Court's Judgment.AIR 2003 SC 2363,(2003)2 SCR 1136,MANU/SC/0234/2003 | 13th March 2003 |
2) The Supreme Court's Judgment On NOTA. Supreme Court
On a petition filed by PUCL for having a separate button on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) with the option of ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) and in which ADR later intervened, the Supreme Court gave a favourable ruling on 27th Sept. 2013. The NOTA button was inserted in the EVM machines first time during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
27th September 2013 |
3) Disqualification Of Convicted MPs/MLAsSupreme Court
On a petition filed by Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari NGO, where ADR also intervened, the Supreme Court stated that if a sitting MP/MLA is convicted (not only charged) then he/ she would be disqualified immediately and the seat would be declared as vacant, setting aside the Clause 8(4) of the Representation of People Act. The Clause 8(4) had provided special privilege to MPs/MLAs to hold the office even after conviction if an appeal has been filed in a higher court within the span of 3 months.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
Supreme Court's Judgment. (2013) 7 SCC 653, (2013) 3 SCC (Civ.) 678, (2013) 3 SCC (Cri.) 641 | 10th July 2013 |
4) Foreign Funding Taken By BJP and INCDelhi High CourtSupreme Court
ADR's petition resulted in a landmark judgment from the Delhi HC which held BJP and Congress guilty of taking foreign funding and violating the provisions of FCRA and directed the Home Ministry and ECI to take action against the two parties within six months. Both INC and BJP had separately appealed against this Delhi HC order in the SC, however, the SC while accepting the appeal refused to grant stay over Delhi HC order. On 29th November 2016, the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by BJP and INC were dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court.
Related News:
- Retro rules make a comeback (Telegraph)
- 2016 Amendment to the FCRA (Corporate Law Reporter)
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
2014 | |
Delhi High Court Judgment. 2014 SCC Online Del 1321, (2014) 209 DLT 607 | 28th March 2014 |
29th November 2016 | |
21st March 2017 | |
5) Ashok Shankarao Chavan vs. Madhao Rao Kindhalkar and Others: The Alleged Paid News CaseDelhi High CourtSupreme Court
This case relates to complaints against former Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan for publication of news items, advertisements and filing inaccurate election expenditure statements during 2009 Maharashtra Assembly elections. In the matter on May 5, 2014, the Supreme court had passed a judgment holding that ECI has powers to disqualify a candidate in relation to filing of false election expenditure statement under Section 10A. ADR had also intervened in the case. Afterwards, the Apex court had ordered ECI to conduct an enquiry under Rule 89(4) of Conduct of Election Rules and decide the matter within 45 days. Consequently, ECI had passed an order on July 13, 2014 and also issued a show cause notice to Mr. Chavan. As a result, Ashok Chavan filed an appeal in Delhi High court on July 25, 2014 against the show cause notice. Based on the appeal, Delhi High court had imposed a stay order on ECI's said order on July 28, 2014. That stay order was then challenged in the SC. The SC did not entertain the plea stating that the question of law involved in the current appeal was not dealt by the Supreme Court in the previous matter and it ordered Delhi High court to dispose off the matter within 15 days.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
2014 | |
Delhi High Court Judgment (Single Bench). (2014) 7 SCC 99 | 28th July 2014 |
5th May 2014 |
6) Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis & ANR Supreme Court
ADR had filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court in an SLP in the matter of Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis SLP (Crl.) 19-20/2018. This matter dealt with concealment of information by Maharashtra C.M. Devendra Fadnavis in his affidavit during the Maharashtra State Assembly elections, 2014. In his affidavit, he had not mentioned the information regarding two criminal cases prescribing punishment of more than two years and where cognizance was taken by the court. ADR had intervened in the matter since the matter is pertaining to furnishing of information in the affidavits by candidates at the time of election and ADR was the original party in the 2000, 2002 and 2003 affidavit judgments.
Supreme Court Judgment: Relevant points of the SC judgment dated 1st October, 2019
- For maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters.
- Under Section 33-A(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, cases in which cognizance has been taken by the court was not added, despite 2002 & 2003 SC ruling.
- Mr Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis missed out on giving details of two cases where court has taken the cognizance.
- Section 33-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form-26 make it amply clear that the information to be furnished also includes cases where cognizance has been taken by the court.
- Details of all pending cases in which cognizance has been taken by the Court, irrespective of the quantum of punishment or framing of charges will have to be disclosed by the candidate.
- Under Section 125A, furnishing of any false information or concealing of information in the affidavit in Form 26 is an electoral offence punishable with imprisonment upto six months, or with fine or both.
- Order of the High Court as well as trial court is not legally tenable and the same deserves to be set aside.
- The complaint of the appellant will be considered afresh by the learned trial Court.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
2019 | |
1st October,2019 |
7) Supreme Court in the matter of Lok Prahari vs. Union of India and others Supreme Court
Matter related to disproportionate assets of the elected representatives and a mechanism to cross- verify their assets in the affidavits.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
2015 | |
SC Judgment in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India and Ors. W.P (C) 784/2015 | 16th February 2018 |
8) Petition challenging the constitutional validity of the current practice of appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners by ExecutiveSupreme Court
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar in a petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) gave a landmark judgment directing the appointment of Members of Election Commission to be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition (or the leader of single largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha.
The bench stated that there is lacuna in law relating to the appointment process of Members of Election Commission and, therefore, “any process that seeks to improve the election process before this Court must be considered”.
Press Release: Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms versus Union of India & ANR. | WP(c) 569/2021
Media Coverages on the Verdict:
- Scroll.in: Explainer: Why the SC took away the government’s discretion to appoint election commissioners
- Hindustan Times: ‘Very positive and progressive’: ADR hails SC verdict on ECI appointments
- Money Control: A Big Bang Poll Reform: Taking Election Commissioner selection out of government’s hands was long overdue
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
2021 | |
2nd March 2023 |
1) Sh. Nand Ram Bagri Vs. Sh Jai Kishan & ORS. : Justice Endlaw judgment on election petition filed in the Delhi High Court( EL. PET. 14/2009 )
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
7th May 2013 |
2) S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2013
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
5th July 2013 |
3) Moti Lal Yadav Vs. Election Commission Of India & Ors. : Caste Based Rallies ( MISC. BENCH No. - 5889 of 2013 )
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
11th July 2013 |
4) Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission OF India
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
13th September 2013 |
5) Public Intrest foundation & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. :W P(CIVIL) NO. 536 OF 2011
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
10th March 2014 | |
25th September 2018 | |
RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR Versus SUNIL ARORA & ORS. (CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO. 2192 OF 2018) | 13th February 2020 |
SC judgment in the matter of Brajesh Singh vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. | 10th August 2021 |
6) Kisan shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
9th May 2014 |
7) Manoj Narula vs. Union Of India :
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
27th August 2014 |
8) Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar & Ors.: Suppression Of Information About Pending Criminal Cases
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
5th February 2015 |
9) Rajbala & Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors. :Minimum Educationl Qualification For Panchayat Election (W P(Civil) No. 671/2015)
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
10th December 2015 |
10) Shri Marembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Phukrem Sharatchandra Singh : Civil Appeal No. 2649/2016
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
28th October 2016 |
11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. : WP(C) 699/2016
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
1st November 2017 |
12) Jamuna vs. Secretary, Govt. Of India and others, HCP 90/2020: Madras High Court Order on enacting a law prohibiting candidates with criminal background from contesting in Parliamentary, Assembly amd Local body elections.
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
13th August 2020 |
13) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. : WP(C) 699/2016
Judgment/Order | Date of issue |
10th August 2021 |
