2026 INSC 868 Page 1 of 46

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______________ OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3549 of 2016)

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRATHIK PARASRAMPURIA … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

This judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2

DEMOCRACY, RULE OF LAW & ELECTIONS ................................................... 6

SCOPE AND ROLE OF ELECTION COMMISSION ........................................... 12

BLACK MONEY: A RECOGNIZED ISSUE ......................................................... 17

AMICUS’ SUGGESTIONS AND OUR ANALYSIS .............................................. 31

DIRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS .................................................................. 44

Page 2 of 46

“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is

of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions

on that right strike at the heart of representative

government.”

Warren, CJ in Reynolds v. Sims

1

Leave Granted.

INTRODUCTION

1. Voting in elections happens generally once every five years.

This one day is the culmination of a long process that begins with

the announcement of the dates by the competent authority,

publication of manifestos by the competing political parties,

advocating for their positions and against the positions of the

others in rallies, press conferences, television advertisements, and

so much more. For the most part, the citizen is only at the receiving

end of this information and campaign across various forms. Their

voice is heard only on election day when the result of the votes cast

by them is counted and notified. It is their one vote for every person

that demonstrates the support expressed for a particular set of

policies put forward. If it is that this one chance at expression is

itself tainted, it would not be an understatement to say that the

1

377 U.S. 533, 1964

Page 3 of 46

very essence of democracy, which is a rule of the people, by the

people and for the people, is compromised. To put it simply, the

choice exercised by the people once influenced by external factors

is no longer a choice of their own. It is somebody else’s choice being

thrust upon them.

2. These external factors can take many shapes and forms.

Almost all of these forms, much like anything else in this world

except for probably peace and contentment, require money. The

law on its own does not permit any external factors to be thrust

upon an individual’s choice. Obviously then, methods that fly

under the radar in exerting influence have to be adopted. Ill-gotten,

undeclared money is one of the primary forms used. It is this which

is called ‘black money’.

PREVIOUS ORDERS

3. By order dated 5

th September, 2017, this Court observed that

in certain constituencies including the one in which the

Respondent was a candidate, some untoward means and methods

were used. As such, notice was issued to the Election Commission

of India

2. The order is extracted as under:

2

EC

Page 4 of 46

“Issue notice returnable within eight weeks to the Election

Commission of India and Union of India.

During the 2014 Lok Sabha bye -elections for Bellary

constituency, the respondent’s residence and business

complex were raided by the flying squad established by

Election Commission of India for controlling the

distribution of cash, gifts, liquor, free food etc in order to

maintain the integrity of the election. The raid was on the

basis of an anonymous message alleging that the

respondent had horded a large amount of counterfeit

currency which was to be used for bribing the voters. One

laptop, cheque books and loose cheque-leaves, a pen drive

and Rs. 20,48,355/- in cash were seized during the raid.

An FIR was registered, being Crime No: 0107 of 2014, on

11.04.2014, under Sections 171 E and 188 of IPC, on the

allegation that the respondent was in possession of money

to be used to pay the voters at the time of the election. The

respondent, filed a petition for quashing of the complaint

before the High Court of Judicature of Karnataka.

The High Court by an order dated 12.02.2015, quashed

the FIR on the ground that there was no averment in the

complaint as to whom the accused intended to bribe and

the mode which he had planned to adopt. Aggrieved by the

judgment of the High Court, the State of Karnataka has

filed a special leave petition.

Having heard parties and on perusing the material

available on record, we are of the opinion that though wide

powers are vested in the Election Commission under

Article 324(1) of the Constitution, they are regulated by

statutory provisions as are enacted by the Parliament. We

are informed that numerous criminal cases relating to

crimes committed during elections are not being pursued

effectively as the prosecution is completely left for the State

machinery. Although learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent drew our attention towards certain

guidelines formulated by the Election Commission of India

concerning flying squads, it would be appropriate that the

Election Commission places before this Court all the

guidelines framed in this regard conce rning the

procedures to be followed by the flying squads, or similar

authorities with respect to search, seizure and prosecution

of other criminal matters involving elections.”

Page 5 of 46

4. All State Governments and Union Territories were made party

to these proceedings in terms of order dated 5

th April 2019. It reads

as under:

“Learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission

of India submits that he does not have the statistics

about the cases of prosecution, particularly the

information as regards to raids conducted and

seizure of money by them during the last

parliamentary elections.

Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel

appearing for the Union of India submits that he will get

necessary information from the Finance Department.

It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the

Election Commission and also other learned counsel that

the criminal cases initiated during the course of

elections are pursued by the respective State

Governments. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to issue

notice to all the State Governments including

Union Territories with a view to ascertain the views and

information from respective State Governments/Union

Territories.

Accordingly, we issue notice to all the State Governments

and Union Territories to file their affidavits and

appear through respective counsel on Thursday, the

25th April, 2019.

List on 25th April, 2019.”

On one of the occasions that the matter was listed, one of the

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties made a

suggestion to the Court that guidelines should be framed to ensure

a fair election process and to prevent the use of black money. On

26

th November, 2025, we appointed Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Senior

Counsel, and Dr. Swapnil Tripathi, Counsel, as Amici Curiae to

assist the Court.

Page 6 of 46

DEMOCRACY, RULE OF LAW & ELECTIONS

5. Democracy, as is well understood, is the rule of the people,

by the people, and for the people. Its origins are believed to be in

the ancient city of Athens in Greece, and today it has become the

most common form of Governance. What began in Athens ,

however, was a form quite distinct from what we understand

‘democracy’ to be today. There, the people, to put it simply,

participated in the decision-making processes themselves. When

the idea travelled from Greece to Rome, the scenario changed. The

people no longer took direct part but instead elected

representatives who took decisions for them. It is this form that

carried to the present day, albeit after a long retreat. The

resurgence began many centuries later with the Magna Carta of

1215. Ever since, there has been slow, incremental progress in

various pockets around the world, which would eventually lay the

seed of the democratic movement. John Locke’s Treatises of

Government, Rousseau’s social contract , and Montesquieu’s

separation of powers are ideas fundamental to how democracy has

been shaped into the present day. Starting with the Glorious

Revolution of 1689, followed by the American Revolution in 1776

and then by the French Revolution in 1789, eventually leading to

Page 7 of 46

a number of turns towards democracy in the 20

th Century with the

breakdown of the world’s imperial powers. With the advent of

democracy in most parts of the world, two of its hallmarks- the

rule of law and the electoral process acquire prime importance.

The rule of law, the constituents of which are supremacy of law,

equality before law and predominance of legal spirit, an idea that

is familiar to almost everyone today, basically means that any

action by the State and its bodies must possess a backing of

legality and reasonableness. This has been recognized as part of

the basic structure of the Constitution in Raj Narain supra.

Recently, this Court in Directions in the Matter of Demolition

of Structures, In re

3, extensively discussed the principles of the

rule of law in the following words:

“21. The rule of law has also been described as “an

umbrella concept for a number of legal and institutional

instruments to protect citizens against the power of the

State” [ Adriaan Bedner, “An Elementary Approach to

the Rule of Law”, (2010) 2.1 Hague Journal on the Rule

of Law, pp. 48-74.] . Moreover, “rule of law is integral to

and necessary for democracy and good governance”,

because “attempts to democratise without a functional

legal system in place have resulted in social disorder” [

Randall Peerenboom, “Human Rights and Rule of Law:

What's the Relationship?”, (2004) 36 Geo J Int'l L 809.]

24. In this respect, we may refer to the work of various

scholars in the field. Thus, “for the rule of law to

measure up to the requirements of a legitimate

constitutional democracy, it must be more than the rule

of law in the narrow sense” [ Michel Rosenfeld, “The Rule

of Law and the Legitimacy of Constitutional

3

(2025) 5 SCC 1

Page 8 of 46

Democracy”, (2000) 74 S Cal L Rev 1307.] . In the

modern constitutional framework, “the rule of law would

seem to need democratic accountability, procedural

fairness, and even perhaps substantive grounding”

[Ibid.] , such as in the provisions of the Constitution. In

other words, “the rule of law means the regulative role

of certain institutions and their associated legal and

judicial practices” [ John Rawls, Samuel Freeman

(Eds.), Collected Papers (Harvard University Press,

2021).] . It has been beautifully observed:

“That is the law. And no Spartan, subject or

citizen, man or woman, slave or king, is above

the law. Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins”

[Id, p. 306.].”

6. The second aspect is elections by which citizens of a nation

make their voices heard and make choices so as to decide who will

lead the country. Arijit Pasayat J., in his dissenting opinion from

the majority in the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Prasad (6)

v. Union of India

4, had said:

“257. Therefore, the well-recognised position in law is

that purity in the electoral process and the conduct of

the elected representatives cannot be isolated from the

constitutional requirements. “Democracy” and “free

and fair election” are inseparable twins. There is

almost an inseverable umbilical cord joining them. In

a democracy the little man—voter has overwhelming

importance and cannot be hijacked from the course of

free and fair elections. His freedom to elect a candidate

of his choice is the foundation of a free and fair

election. But after getting elected, if the elected

candidate deviates from the course of fairness and

purity and becomes a “purchasable commodity” he not

only betrays the electorate, but also pollutes the pure

stream of democracy.”

4

(2006) 2 SCC 1

Page 9 of 46

7. The election is the only time that a common person who

otherwise has no connection to governance structures, can make

a direct impact. Since this has a straight forward implication for

their immediate future, the importance of this exercise of choice

between a large field of candidates in some countries and, in

others, only two cannot be overstated. Any external factors that

may influence this exercise of choice have the ability to

compromise the very essence of democracy, since the choice made

by the individual is not free and unencumbered but instead

clouded by gratification, monetary or otherwise, or by promises

sometimes genuine, other times misleading.

8. As demonstrated, the three ideas of democracy, the rule of

law, and the electoral processes are inextricably linked to one

another. If one aspect of any of these three parts is compromised,

it impacts the entirety of the three ideas and their execution. Black

money in the electoral process i.e. the issue with which we are

herein concerned, is one such aspect that compromises

democracy, rule of law and the electoral process itself.

9. What has been discussed in the previous section of this

judgment has also been recognised and acknowledged as

indispensable, on various pages of the country’s judicial history.

Page 10 of 46

9.1 In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

5, H.R Khanna J., in

his concurring opinion, observed:

“198. This Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati held

by majority that the power of amendment of the

Constitution contained in Article 368 does not permit

altering the basic structure of the Constitution. All the

seven Judges who constituted the majority were also agreed

that democratic set-up was part of the basic structure of the

Constitution. Democracy postulates that there should be

periodical elections, so that people may be in a position

either to re-elect the old representatives or, if they so

choose, to change the representatives and elect in their

place other representatives. Democracy further

contemplates that the elections should be free and fair, so

that the voters may be in a position to vote for candidates

of their choice. Democracy can indeed function only upon

the faith that elections are free and fair and not rigged and

manipulated, that they are effective instruments of

ascertaining popular will both in reality and form and are

not mere rituals calculated to generate illusion of defence to

mass opinion. Free and fair elections require that the

candidates and their agents should not resort to unfair

means or malpractices as may impinge upon the process of

free and fair elections….”

(emphasis supplied)

9.2 K.K Mathew J., in the same judgment said thus:

“268. The concept of democracy as visualised by the

Constitution presupposes the representation of the people

in Parliament and State Legislatures by the method of

election. And, before an election machinery can be brought

into operation, there are three requisites which require to

be attended to, namely, (1) there should be a set of laws

and rules making provisions with respect to all matters

relating to, or in connection with, elections, and it should

be decided as to how these laws and rules are to be made;

(2) there should be an executive charged with the duty of

securing the due conduct of elections; and (3) there should

be a judicial tribunal to deal with disputes arising out of

or in connection with elections. Articles 327 and 328 deal

with the first of these requisites, Article 324 with the

5

1975 Supp SCC 1 (Constitution Bench)

Page 11 of 46

second and Article 329 with the third requisite (see N.P.

Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer , Namakkal

Constituency [(1952) 1 SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64 : 1952

SCR 218, 229 : 1 ELR 133] ).”

9.3 D. Y Chandrachud J (as he then was) in State (NCT of Delhi)

v. Union of India

6, held as follows:

“466. … The functioning of institutions must establish a

constitutional balance which facilitates cooperative

governance. Governance in cooperation is both a hallmark

and a necessity of our constitutional structure. Our

Constitution distributes legislative and executive powers

between political entities. Distribution of power between

institutions which are the creation of the Constitution is a

significant effort to ensure that the values of participation

and representation which constitute the foundation of

democracy permeate to all levels of governance. The federal

structure for governance which is a part of the basic

structure recognises the importance of fulfilling regional

aspirations as a means of strengthening unity. The

Constitution has adopted some b ut may be not all

elements of a federal polity and the Union Government has

an important role in the affairs of the nation.”

9.4 The majority in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

[Election Commission Appointments]

7, has observed thus:

“124. Unlike demands of a formal democracy, the

hallmark of a substantive democracy and if we may say so,

a liberal democracy must be borne in mind. Democracy is

inextricably intertwined with power to the people. The

ballot, is more potent than the most powerfu l gun.

Democracy facilitates a peaceful revolution at the hands of

the common man if elections are held in a free and fair

manner. Elections can be conflated with a non -violent

coup capable of unseating the most seemingly powerful

governing parties, if they do not perform to fulfil the

aspirations of the governed. Democracy is meaningful only

if the sublime goals enshrined in the Preamble to the

Constitution receive the undivided attention of the rulers,

6

(2018) 8 SCC 501 (Constitution Bench)

7

(2023) 6 SCC 161 (Constitution Bench)

Page 12 of 46

namely, social, political and economic justice. The

concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity must not be

strange bedfellows to the ruling class. Secularism, a basic

feature of the Constitution must inform all actions of the

State, and therefore, cannot be spurned but must be

observed in letter and spirit. Democracy can be achieved

only when the governing dispensation sincerely

endeavours to observe the fundamental rights in letter and

spirit. Democracy also, needless to say, would become

fragile and may collapse, if only lip service is paid to the

rule of law.

125. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that the Founding

Fathers have contemplated that not only must India aspire

for a democratic form of government and life but it is their

unambiguous aim that India must be a Democratic

Republic. The conventional definition of a “Republic” is

that it is a body Polity, in which, the Head of State is

elected. However, the republican character of our

democracy also means that the majority abides by the

Constitution ensuring rights granted under it and also

pursues goals enshrined in it. A brute majority generated

by a democratic process must conform to constitutional

safeguards and the demands of constitutional morality. A

Democratic Republic contemplates that majoritarian

forces which may be compatible with a democracy, must

be counterbalanced by protection accorded to those not in

the majority. When we speak about the minority, the

expression is not to be conflated with or limited to

linguistic or religious minorities. These are aspects which

again underly the need for an independent Election

Commission.”

SCOPE AND ROLE OF ELECTION COMMISSION

10. Well, given that the elections are indispensable to democracy,

it only stands to reason that the Constituent Assembly would have

conceived of a body that would be tasked with undertaking the

election process. After all, those who are up for elections

themselves cannot be responsible for conducting the elections

itself. If that is so, the election would be rendered illusory. Article

Page 13 of 46

324 of the Indian Constitution, which vests the superintendence,

direction and control of elections in the Election Commission,

reads as under:

“324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections

to be vested in an Election Commission. —(1) The

superintendence, direction and control of the preparation

of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to

Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of

elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held

under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission

(referred to in this Constitution as the Election

Commission).

(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief

Election Commissioner and such number of other Election

Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to

time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election

Commissioner and other Election Commi ssioners shall,

subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by

Parliament, be made by the President.

(3) When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed

the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the

Chairman of the Election Commission.

(4) Before each general election to the House of the People

and to the Legislative Assembly of each State, and before

the first general election and thereafter before each

biennial election to the Legislative Council of each State

having such Council, the President may also appoint after

consultation with the Election Commission such Regional

Commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the

Election Commission in the performance of the functions

conferred on the Commission by clause (1).

(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by

Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of

the Election Commissioners and the Regional

Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule

determine:

Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not

be removed from his office except in like manner and on

the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the

conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner

shall not be varied to his dis advantage after his

appointment:

Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or

a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office

Page 14 of 46

except on the recommendation of the Chief Election

Commissioner.

(6) The President, or the Governor of a State, shall, when

so requested by the Election Commission, make available

to the Election Commission or to a Regional Commissioner

such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the

functions conferred on the Election Commission by clause

(1).”

10.1 As far as the function of the EC goes, Article 324(1) says

that this body shall be responsible for “superintendence,

direction and control” of elections, preparation of

electoral rolls, etc. It obviously has myriad functions,

including maintaining the integrity of the election

process and controlling the distribution of inducements

like cash, liquor and free food. [See: Mohinder Singh

Gill v. Chief Election Commr.

8]

10.2 Powers, wide though they may be, are not plenary in

nature. The powers under this Article apply only to those

areas that are unoccupied by legislation. [See: A.C. Jose

v. Sivan Pillai

9]

10.3 One of the responsibilities is the allocation of election

symbols and the adjudication of any dispute which may

8

(1978) 1 SCC 405

9

(1984) 2 SCC 656

Page 15 of 46

arise inter se competing claimants for the same symbol.

[See: Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India

10]

10.4 The Commission also provides advice to the Governor or

the President as the case may be upon the

disqualification of a member of either of the Houses in

the Centre or the State, as the case may be. [See:

Election Commission of India v. Subramaniam

Swamy

11

]

10.5 Enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during

election time is also a primary responsibility. [See: S.

Subramaniam Balaji v. State of T.N.

12]

11. The factors discussed by us above are only illustrative. In

Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms

13, a three-judge

Bench summarised the constitutional position qua the EC in the

following terms:

“46. To sum up the legal and constitutional position which

emerges from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated

that:

1. The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide

enough to include all powers necessary for smooth

conduct of elections and the word “elections” is used in a

wide sense to include the entire process of election which

consists of several stages and embraces many steps.

2. The limitation on plenary character of power is when

Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law

10

(1972) 4 SCC 664

11

(1996) 4 SCC 104

12

(2013) 9 SCC 659

13

(2002) 5 SCC 294

Page 16 of 46

relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission

is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In

case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power

to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair

election. The Constitution has taken care of leaving scope

for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its

own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite

variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in

a large democracy, as every contingency could not be

foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the rules.

By issuing necessary directions, the Commission can fill

the vacuum till there is legislation on the subject.

In Kanhiya Lal Omar case [(1985) 4 SCC 628] the Court

construed the expression “superintendence, direction and

control” in Article 324(1) and held that a direction may

mean an order issued to a particular individual or a

precept which many may have to follow and it may be a

specific or a general order and such phrase should be

construed liberally empowering the Election Commission

to issue such orders.

3. The word “elections” includes the entire process of

election which consists of several stages and it embraces

many steps, some of which may have an important bearing

on the process of choosing a candidate. Fair election

contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his past

including the assets held by him so as to give a proper

choice to the candidate according to his thinking and

opinion. As stated earlier, in Common Cause case [(1996)

2 SCC 752] the Court dealt with a contention that elections

in the country are fought with the help of money power

which is gathered from black sources and once elected to

power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money,

which is used for retaining power and for re-election. If on

an affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets

held by him at the time of election, the voter can decide

whether he could be re-elected even in case where he has

collected tons of money.

Presuming, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel

Mr Ashwani Kumar, that this condition may not be much

effective for breaking a vicious circle which has polluted

the basic democracy in the country as the amount would

be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have its own

effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-

breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy

may blossom.

4. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to

bring transparency in the process of election, the

Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure

incurred by the political parties and this transparency in

Page 17 of 46

the process of election would include transparency of a

candidate who seeks election or re -election. In a

democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The

little man of this country would have basic elementary

right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to

represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty

and property may be enacted.

5. The right to get information in democracy is recognised

all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the

concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to

Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights, which is as under:

“(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without

interference.

(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of

expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive

and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of

frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of

art, or through any other media of his choice.”

6. On cumulative reading of a plethora of decisions of this

Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for

legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to

the public interest, this Court would have ample

jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and

142of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the

executive to subserve public interest.

7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for

freedom of speech and expression. Voter's speech or

expression in case of election would include casting of

votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by

casting vote. For this purpose, information about the

candidate to be selected is a must. Voter's (little man —

citizen's) right to know antecedents including criminal

past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is

much more fundamental and basic for survi val of

democracy. The little man may think over before

making his choice of electing law -breakers as law-

makers.”

(Emphasis supplied)

BLACK MONEY: A RECOGNIZED ISSUE

12. It flows from the above that controlling the use of black

money in the electoral process is one of the responsibilities of the

Page 18 of 46

EC. The issue of this tainted money circulating and polluting this

most cherished process of democracy is not a recent phenomenon

and has been recognized time and time again. We may illustrate

the same as under:

12.1 As far back as 1975, this Court in Kanwar Lal Gupta v.

Amar Nath Chawla

14, while dealing with a challenge to the

election to the Lok Sabha of a particular candidate in the 1971

Elections, filed by the unsuccessful candidate, made

observations of essence through P.N Bhagwati J., as follows:

“…The object of the provision limiting the expenditure is

twofold. In the first place, it should be open to any

individual or any political party, howsoever small, to be

able to contest an election on a footing of equality with any

other individual or political party, howsoever rich and well

financed it may be, and no individual or political party

should be able to secure an advantage over others by

reason of its superior financial strength. It can hardly be

disputed that the way elections are held in our country,

money is bound to play an important part in the successful

prosecution of an election campaign. … The availability of

large funds does ordinarily tend to increase the number of

votes a candidate will receive. If therefore, one political

party or individual has larger resources available to it than

another individual or political party, the former would

certainly, under the present system of conducting

elections, have an advantage over the latter in the electoral

process. The former would have a significantly greater

opportunity for the propagation of its programme while the

latter may not be able to make even an effective

presentation of its views. The availability of

disproportionately larger resources is also likely to lend

itself to misuse or abuse for securing to the political party

or individual possessed of such resources, undue

14

(1975) 3 SCC 646

Page 19 of 46

advantage over other political parties or individuals.

Douglas points out in his book called Ethics in

Government at p. 72, “If one party ever attains

overwhelming superiority in money, newspaper support,

and (Government) patronage, it will be almost impossible,

barring an economic collapse, for it ever to be defeated”.

This produces anti-democratic effects in that a political

party or individual backed by the affluent and wealthy

would be able to secure a greater representation than a

political party or individual who is without any links with

affluence or wealth. This would result in serious

discrimination between one political party or individual

and another on the basis of money power and that in its

turn would mean that “some voters are denied an ‘equal’

voice and some candidates are denied an ‘equal chance’ ”.

It is elementary that each and every citizen has an

inalienable right to full and effective participation in the

political process of the Legislatures and this requires that

each citizen should have equally effective voice in the

election of the members of the Legislatures. That is the

basic requirement of the Constitution. This equal effective

voice — equal opportunity of participation in the electoral

process — would be denied if affluence and wealth are to

tilt the scales in favour of one political party or individual

as against another. The democratic process can function

efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the common

good and reach out the benefits of self-government to the

common man only if it brings about a participatory

democracy in which every man, howsoever lowly or

humble he may be, should be able to participate on a

footing of equality with others. Individuals with grievances,

men and women with ideas and vision, are the sources of

any society's power to improve itself. Government by

consent means that such individuals must eventually be

able to find groups that will work with them and must be

able to make their voices heard in these groups and no

group should be insulated from competition and criticism.

It is only by the maintenance of such conditions that

democracy can thrive and prosper and this can be ensured

only by limiting the expenditure which may be incurred in

connection with elections, so that, as far as possible, no

one single political party or individual can have unfair

advantage over the other by reason of its larger resources

and the resources available for being utilised in the

electoral process are within reasonable bounds and not

unduly disparate and the electoral contest becomes evenly

matched. Then alone the small man will come into his own

and will be able to secure proper representation in our

legislative bodies.”

Page 20 of 46

(Emphasis supplied)

12.2 Goswami Committee On Electoral Reforms, 1990:

“1.6 The role of money and muscle powers at

elections deflecting seriously the well accepted

democratic values and ethos and corrupting the

process; rapid criminalisation of politics greatly

encouraging evils of booth capturing, rigging,

violence etc.; misuse of official machinery, i.e. official

media and ministerial; increasing menace of

participation of non-serious candidates; form the

core of our electoral problems. Urgent corrective

measures are the need of the hour lest the system

itself should collapse.”

12.3 President’s Address, Hon. K.R Narayanan, to the Joint

Session of Parliament in 1998

“One of the causes of corruption and corrosion of

values in our polity, as well as criminalisation of

politics, stems from flaws in the electoral process. To

ensure free, fair and fearless elections and to prevent

the use of money and muscle power, Governm ent

will introduce a comprehensive Electoral Reformss

Bill for which considerable ground work has already

been done.”

12.4 Vohra Committee,1993:

“3.2 An organised crime Syndicate/Mafia generally

commences its activities by indulging in petty crime

at the local level, mostly relating to illicit

distillation/gambling/organised satta and

prostitution in the larger towns. In port towns, their

activities involve smuggling and sale of imported

goods and progressively graduate to narcotics and

drug trafficking. In the bigger cities, the main source

of income relates to real estate – forcibly occupying

lands/buildings, procuring such properties at cheap

rates by forcing out the existing occupants/tenants

etc. Over time, the money power thus acquired is

used for building up contacts with bureaucrats and

politicians and expansion of activities with impunity.

The money power is used to develop a network of

Page 21 of 46

muscle-power which is also used by the politicians

during elections.

…

6.2 (ii) The big smuggling Syndicates, having

international linkages, have spread into and infected

the various economic and financial activities,

including havala transactions, circulation of black

money and operations of a vicious parallel economy

causing serious damage to the economic fibre of the

country. These Syndicates have acquired

substantial financial and muscle power and social

respectability and have successfully corrupted the

government machinery at all levels and wield

enough influence to make the task of Investigating

and Prosecuting agencies extremely difficult; even

the members of the Judicial system have not

escaped the embrace of the Mafia.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12.5 This Court in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v.

Madhavrao Kinhalkar

15, also made some important

observations which we extract as under:

“66. In recent times, when elections are being held it is

widely reported in the press and media that money

power plays a very vital role. Going by such reports and

if it is true then it is highly unfortunate that many of the

voters are prepared to sell their votes for a few hundred

rupees. In fact, taking advantage of the weakness of the

voters, exploitation to the maximum level is being

carried out by those who aspire to become either

Member of Parliament or State Legislature. We are

pained to state that the sanctity of the status as a

Member of the Legislatures, either Parliament or State

Legislature is not being seriously weighed even by those

who sponsor their candidature. It is a hard reality that

if one is prepared to expend money to unimaginable

limits only then can he be preferred to be nominated as

a candidate for such membership, as against the

credentials of genuine and deserving candidates. If such

practices are to be simply ignored and a laudable object

with which the Act has been brought into the statute

15

(2014) 7 SCC 99

Page 22 of 46

book as early as in the year 1950 and later on by the Act

of 1951, wherein by virtue of the constitutional

provision under Article 324 an authority in the status of

the Election Commission is created in order to supervise

and control the elections, it must be stated that such an

authority who is in ultimate control in the matter of

holding of the elections should be held to be invested

with the widest power of its kind specified in the Act.

Therefore, when it comes to the question of

interpretation of the extent of such power to be exercised

by the said authority, we are convinced that the Court

should have a very liberal approach in interpreting the

nature of power and jurisdiction vested with the said

authority, namely, the Election Commission. This view

of ours is more so apt in the present day context,

wherein money power virtually controls the whole field

of election and that people are taken for a ride by such

unscrupulous elements who want to gain the status of

a Member of Parliament or the State Legislature by hook

or by crook.”

12.6 In 2015, the Law Commission of India under the

Chairmanship of AP Shah, CJ published 255

th Report

focusing on electoral reforms :

“2.4 It is now well established that money plays a big

role in politics, whether in the conduct, or campaigning,

for elections. The Election Commission of India

(hereinafter “ECI”), in its guidelines issued on 29th

August 2014, recognised that “concerns hav e been

expressed in various quarters that money power is

disturbing the level playing field and vitiating the purity

of elections.” What gives rise to these concerns about the

role of big money in politics? These are not mere

theoretical debates but are actual problems afflicting the

electoral process in India. Money, often from illegitimate

sources, results in “undisguised bullying” when it is

used (both authorised and unauthorised) to buy muscle

power, weapons, or to unduly influence voters through

liquor, cash, gifts. Currency notes come first in

containers, then in truckloads, moving to

wholesale/small retail forms, and finally to suitcases

and in people’s pockets…”

Page 23 of 46

12.7 Union Budget 2017 presented by Mr. Arun Jaitley,

Finance Minister:

“India is the world’s largest democracy. Political

parties are an essential ingredient of a multi-party

Parliamentary democracy. Even 70 years after

Independence, the country has not been able to

evolve a transparent method of funding political

parties which is vital to the system of free and fair

elections. ...”

13. As demonstrated, this issue has been taken note of

consistently by both Judicial and Executive authority. As such, the

suggestion made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

Election Commission as recorded in the proceedings of 10.05.2019,

that some guidelines should be laid down to prevent the use of

black money in the electoral process, is well-founded and justified.

THE POSITION OF THE E LECTION COMMISSION

14. We had enquired from the EC regarding the steps that it has

undertaken in furtherance of curbing this ill practice. Voluminous

affidavits have been filed, placing on record the Standard Operating

Procedures (SOPs) for flying squads, reporting of election

expenditure, etc. Also, brought on record was information

regarding efforts made to check the spread of such practices in the

Page 24 of 46

election cycles. It would be appropriate to reproduce that part of

the relevant affidavit as under:

“A short summary of the data compiled by the Election

Commission is provided hereinunder for the sake of

convenience:

a. During the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, substantial

seizures were made and a large number of FIRs

were registered with largest numbers in the

following states:

b. Similarly, during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections,

a significant increase in enforcement action was

reported with largest numbers in the following

states:

S. No. Name of State No of FIR registered

1 Gujarat 52,820

2 Maharashtra 29,545

3 West Bengal 27,461

4 Uttar Pradesh 23,645

5 Telangana 23,087

6 Rajasthan 12,476

7 Karnataka 7,588

S. No. Name of State No. of FIR registered

1 Gujarat 35,144

2 Uttar Pradesh 19,209

3 Maharashtra 18,928

4 West Bengal 17,493

5 Rajasthan 8,652

6 Telangana 8,550

7 Andhra Pradesh 6,489

8 Tamil Nadu 5,106

9 Karnataka 4,609

10 Punjab 4,869

Page 25 of 46

S. No. Name of State No of FIR registered

8 Tamil Nadu 5,948

9 Andhra Pradesh 5,043

c. Furthermore, in respect of the Legislative Assembly

Elections conducted between 2019 and 2025, a

considerable volume of seizures and FIR

registrations was reported with largest numbers in

the following states:

Thereafter, in the Supplementary Affidavit, the outcome of these

cases, as on 15

th November 2025, is as under:

S. No. Category Total

1 Total number of FIRs filed 144,030

2 Total cases under investigation 1,348

3 Total closure reports filed 26,990

4 Total convicted 37,215

5 Total pending trial 44,387

S.

No.

Name of State

Assembly

Election

Year

No. of

FIRs

registered

1 Telangana 2023 33,496

2 Gujarat 2022 30,253

3 Maharashtra 2024 26,302

4 West Bengal 2021 25,061

5 Uttar Pradesh 2022 20,994

6 Maharashtra 2019 12,464

7 Rajasthan 2023 12,204

8 Tamil Nadu 2021 10,756

9 Karnataka 2023 8,440

10 Punjab 2022 3,834

11 Kerala 2021 3,087

Page 26 of 46

S. No. Category Total

6 Total acquittals 36,312

Key Observations:

• Conviction Rate: 25.8% (37,215 convictions out of 144,030 FIRs)

• Closure Rate: 18.7% (26,990 closure reports out of 144,030 FIRs)

• Pendency: 30.8% (44,387 cases still pending trial even after 5+

years)

II. Lok Sabha General Elections 2024

13. That during the General Elections for the Lok Sabha

held in 2024, a total of 387,430 FIRs were filed. The status

of investigations and trials in these cases is as under:

S. No. Category Total

1 Total number of FIRs filed 387,430

2 Total cases under investigation 7,930

3 Total closure reports filed 76,987

4 Total convicted 166,044

5 Total pending trial 106,841

6 Total acquittals 24,950

Key Observations:

• Conviction Rate: 42.9% (166,044 convictions out of

387,430 FIRs) – showing significant improvement

• Closure Rate: 19.9% (76,987 closure reports)

• Swift Action: Despite being recent elections, conviction

rate has improved substantially

III. State Legislative Assembly Elections (2019–2025)

14. That during the General Elections for the Legislative

Assemblies held between 2019-2025, a total of 201,894

FIRs were filed. The status of investigations and trials in

these cases is as under:

Page 27 of 46

S. No. Category Total

1 Total number of FIRs filed 201,894

2 Total cases under investigation 4,665

3 Total closure reports filed 53,126

4 Total convicted 40,155

5 Total pending trial 79,148

6 Total acquittals 25,980

”

In the supplementary affidavit, the Election Commission has

highlighted an issue of considerable importance. It is submitted

that, given prosecution of offences during election periods is the

responsibility of the State Governments, and unilateral withdrawal

of cases upon change in the dispensation within the State is a

problematic reality. The Election Commission’s own position on

this issue must also be noted:

“ANNEXURE-C/3

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001

No. 509/CC-EO/2009/RCC/531 -600

Dated: 10th August, 2009

To,

The Chief Secretaries

of all States/Union Territories

Sub: Cases filed against individuals during election period -

need to pursue the cases to their logical conclusion.

Sir/Madam,

During the period of election, the election officials and the Police

detect several incidents of violation of law, electoral offences,

corrupt practices, etc. committed by the candidates or by their

supporters. These violations and malpractices have seriou s

adverse implications in the conduct of free and fair elections, a

mandate given to the Commission under Article 324 of the

Page 28 of 46

Constitution. Therefore, cases/complaints/FIRs are filed/

registered promptly against persons found indulging in electoral

offences and other violations of the law by the aforesaid authorities

who are all on deputation to the Commission under the law during

the relevant period. Prosecution of these cases before the courts of

law understandably takes time. However, irrespective of the time

lag, the proper and meticulous prosecution of the cases initiated

during the election period and taking them to their lo gical

conclusion is important for ensuring free and fair election which

is the corner-stone of our democracy. This, in addition to serving

the interest of administration of justice, also acts as a deterrent

for future, thereby helping the cause of conduct of free and fair

elections.

The Commission has observed that in many cases, after the

elections are over, the State Governments seek unilateral

withdrawal of the cases filed/registered during the election period

in which the Election Commission is vitally concerned. This

happens generally when the accused happens to be a leader or

supporter of the ruling formation party. Even cases involving

serious offences like bribery which have serious implication in the

context of fair elections and free exercise of franchise by the

electors, are sought to be withdrawn at times. The withdrawal of

such cases is totally against public interest and also 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. In each case where the Central Government has

sought the Commission’s views on the proposals referred to the

Centre by the State governments in terms of Section 321 of the

Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of cases on offences related to elections,

the Commission has taken the consistent stand that the cases

should not be withdrawn, and they should be pursued vigorously

to their logical conclusions by the Hon’ble Court. A copy of the

Office Memorandum dated 06.05.2009 issued by the M/o Law &

Justice, Govt. of India, on one such communication from the

Commission, is enclosed for reference.

Having considered the issue, and the tendency on the part of the

State Governments to seek withdrawal of cases, the Commission

has directed under Article 324 of the Constitution that

cases/complaints/FIRs filed/registered during the period of

elections including any pending cases, for offences related to

elections, whether offences under the IPC, the Representation of

the People Act, or any other law, should not be withdrawn, and all

such cases should be pursued and taken to their logical

conclusion.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Page 29 of 46

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(R. K. SRIVASTAVA)

SECRETARY

Copy to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States/UTs.”

The same position was repeatedly reiterated.

16

Also brought on record is the opinion rendered in this regard by

the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India dated 6

th

June 2009. The said opinion is as below:

“ANNEXURE-C/1

Government of India

Ministry of Law and Justice

Legislative Department

New Delhi, dated the 6th May, 2009

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Proposal for permission of the Central

Government under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. 1973 for

withdrawal from prosecution of case registered in Bhandara

Police Station (District Bhandara, State of Maharashtra) FIR

Nos. 172/04 and 178/04 against Shri Nana Panchbudde for

violation of provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Defacement of Property Act, 1955 and the Representation of

the People Act, 1951 - regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to the Ministry of Home

Affairs O.M. No. F-4/2/2009-JUDL.CELL dated the 23rd

March, 2009 on the subject cited above.

2. The Election Commission of India is of the view that

the cases relating to electoral offences should not be

16

Pages 113-115 of Supp Aff and 116-118 as well.

Page 30 of 46

withdrawn and those should be perused to their logical end.

The Commission has further stated that considering the

nature of the offence in the case in hand, this case may also

be prosecuted to its logical conclusion for appropriate orders

of the Court.

3. The Department of Legal Affairs has opined that “the

power to withdraw from prosecution should be exercised in

the light of Public Prosecutor’s own judgment and not at the

dictation of some other authority, however high. This power

is not an absolute power; it can be exercised only with the

consent of the Court. The curb thus placed on the power is

to ensure that it is not abused, that is to say, not exercised

for improper reasons or to save improper acts. The Court

gives its consent in the exercise of its judicial discretion and

before granting consent, it must be satisfied that the grounds

stated for the withdrawal are proper grounds, grounds which

if true, would make the withdrawal in furtherance of rather

than hindrance to the object of the law. The ultimate guiding

consideration must be the interest of the administration of

justice.”

4. In view of the above, this Department cannot accede

with the proposal for withdrawal from prosecution.

5. This issues with the approval of Hon’ble MLJ.

Sd/-

(R. Sreenivas)

Deputy Legislative Counsel

Tel. No. 23389142

Fax No. 23382733

Ministry of Home Affairs

[Kind Attn: Shri Mohinder Singh, Director (Judicial)]

Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road,

New Delhi - 110 001.”

Page 31 of 46

AMICUS’ SUGGESTIONS AND OUR ANALYSIS

15. It is in light of the above position that we must now turn our

attention to the suggestions made by the learned amici curiae.

Suggestions have primarily been made under six heads:

i. Seizure of cash and other valuables

ii. Release of cash

iii. Real-time tracking

iv. Registration of FIR

v. Effective investigation and prosecution

vi. Withdrawal of cases

16. Dr. Swapnil Tripathi, learned amicus curiae had been

requested by this Court by order dated 19.12.2025 to submit a note

on ‘Global Practices in Election Matters’. The following is a

summary of the note so submitted :-

(a) The comparative analysis carried out takes into account

four factors i.e., (i) established democracies with historical and

constitutional links to India and whose practices have been

frequently relied on in the past; (ii) neighbouring jurisdictions;

(iii) jurisdictions that have encountered similar issues as

raised in the present lis; (iv) jurisdictions that have vested

Page 32 of 46

within the concerned bodies, comparatively stronger powers,

that may be relevant to India;

(b) The use of money and other material benefits to

influence voters is somewhat a universal phenomenon and

States have put into place different measures to address

electoral inducements. A table has been annexed depicting

provisions similar to Sections 171(b) and 171(e) of IPC

(Sections 170 and 173 of the BNS 2023) with 16 jurisdictions

viz., Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia etc.;

(c) Reference has been made to Article 25(b) of the

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,

Article 7(3), 15(a), 30(1) & (2) of the United Nations Convention

on Corruption 2003, among others;

(d) Across jurisdictions, three approaches to monitoring

and enforcing compliance with election laws are most

commonplace – (a) offences committed during election time are

addressed under general criminal law that too mostly after the

election has concluded; (b) ad hoc or temporary institutional

responses; and (c) dedicated and structured election-period

enforcement mechanisms, which may take the shape of

specialised teams institutional frameworks aimed at

Page 33 of 46

preventing and detecting electoral offences

contemporaneously;

(e) It is acknowledged that the approaches referred to supra

are not mutually exclusive and instead many jurisdictions

combine features of all the three approaches to constitute a

mechanism that fits their requirements.

(f) The next aspect which the note focusses on the

procedure in place with respect to withdrawal of prosecution

since that is one of the primary concerns highlighted by the

Election Commission. It is noted that judicial oversight at the

stage of withdrawal or discontinuance exists across a number

of jurisdictions, however the degree of oversight varies. A chart

has been provided which is extracted as under:-

Sl.No. Jurisdiction Authority

Responsible

Role of the

EC/Equivalent

Body

1. Australia Commonwealth

Director of Public

Prosecutions

None

2. Bangladesh Public Prosecutor None

3. Brazil Electoral Prosecutor

(Ministerio Publico

Eleitoral)

None

4. Canada Director of Public

Prosecutions (DPP)

None

5. England and

Wales

Crown Prosecution

Service

None

Page 34 of 46

6. Indonesia Public Prosecutor

(within Gakkumudu

framework)

Involved in

prosecution

and hence, has

a role

7. Kenya Director of Public

Prosecutions

None

8. Malaysia Attoney General as

Public Prosecutor

None

9. Maldives Office of the

Prosecutor General

None

10. Mexico Specialised electoral

Prosecutor (FISEL)

None

11. Nepal Government

Attorney

None

12. Nigeria Attorney-General

(Federal/State)

None

13. Pakistan Public Prosecutor None

14. Phillipines Prosecutor Involved in the

decision to

prosecute and

hence, has

some control

15. Singapore Public Prosecutor None

16. Sri Lanka Attorney General None

(g) Regarding the input from election authorities, it is submitted

that various countries adopt the model where Courts having the

final authority over the withdrawal of cases, but the said decision

being informed by consideration of election management by a

defined institution, apart from prosecutorial assessment.

Instances are drawn from Indonesia and the Philippines. It is

further submitted that this approach would be consistent with this

Page 35 of 46

Court’s practice of developing ‘context sensitive, indigenous

constitutional solutions’ strengthening procedural accountability

without disturbing constitutional boundaries, such as in the

instant case, would advance the commitment to safeguarding free

and fair elections. Let us now, in the light of the above discussion,

examine each of these suggestions.

17. Let us now, in the light of the above discussion, examine each

of these suggestions.

17.1 Regarding seizure of cash, the SOPs and the Commission’s

instructions specify that the reasons leading the

authorities to believe that the purpose for which an

individual is carrying or having cash in excess of

Rs.50,000/- in his possession, should be based on ‘reliable

information’ that the same is intended to be used for

purposes that would compromise election integrity, such

as distribution among votes, bribing official, etc.

It is imperative to take note of the procedures in this regard

mentioned in the SOP of the EC. Relevant parts thereof are

extracted under:

Page 36 of 46

Regarding flying spot squads

“4. Whenever a complaint regarding distribution of cash or

liquor or any other item of bribe or regarding movement of

antisocial elements or arms and ammunition, is received,

the FS shall reach the spot immediately. In case of

suspicion of commission of any crime, the incharge Police

Officer of FS shall seize cash or items of bribe or other such

items, and gather evidence and record statement of the

witnesses and the persons from whom the items are seized

and issue proper Panchnama for seizure as per the

provisions of CrPC to the person from whom such items

are seized. He shall ensure that case is submitted in the

Court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hrs. The

Magistrate of the FS will ensure that proper procedure is

followed and there is no law and order problem.

6. The entire proceeding shall be video recorded. The

Incharge Officer of FS shall also file complaints/F.I.R.

immediately against (i) the persons, receiving and giving

bribe; and ii) any other person from whom contraband

items are seized, or (ili) any other antisocial elements

found engaged in illegal activity. The copy of the

complaint/FIR shall be displayed on the notice board of

the R.O. for public information and be sent to the DEO,

General Observer, Expenditure Observer and Police

Observer. The Expenditure Observer shall mention it in

the Shadow Observation Register, if it has links with any

candidate's election expenditure.”

Regarding Static Surveillance Teams:

“4. The checking by the SSTs shall be done in the presence

of an Executive Magistrate and shall be video-graphed. No

such checking shall take place without the presence of

Executive Magistrate. The video/CCTV record with an

identification mark of date, place and team number shall

be deposited with the R.O, on the next day who shall

preserve the same for verification by the Commission at

later point of time. It may also be widely advertised by the

DEO that any member of the public can obtain a copy of

the video/ CCTV record by depositing Rs. 300/-.

7. During checking, if any cash exceeding Rs. 50,000/- is

found in a vehicle carrying a candidate, his agent, or party

worker or carrying posters or election materials or any

drugs, liquor, arms or gift items which are valued at more

than Rs. 10,000/-, likely to be used for inducement of

electors or any other illicit articles are found in a vehicle,

shall be subject to seizure. The whole event of checking

Page 37 of 46

and seizure is to be captured in a video/CCTV, which will

be submitted to the Returning Officer, everyday.

9. During checking, if there is any suspicion of commission

of crime, the seizure of cash or any item shall be done by

the incharge Police Officer of the SST as per provision of

CrPC in presence of the Executive Magistrate. The Police

Officer in charge of SST shall file complaint/FIR in the

Court, having jurisdiction, within 24 hours.”

A perusal of the above extracted portions of the SOPs both in regard

to the Flying Squads (FS) and the Static Surveillance Teams (SST)

reveals that there has to be suspicion of commission of any crime

when the flying squad takes the call to seize cash. Panchama has

to be prepared as per the CrPC, and it has to be video-graphed.

Similarly, for the static surveillance teams, the presence of the

Executive Magistrate, video-graphing with safeguards in place

regarding its originality by time and date stamp. This is to be

subsequently verified by the Commission. Also, any member of the

public can obtain such video-graphed evidence by depositing a

specified sum. Still further for a particular event of cash being in

possession, exceeding ₹ 50,000 the term used is “likely to be used

for inducement of electors”. When any seizure is done, the

complaint regarding the same is to be filed within 24 hours. All of

these aspects taken together, to our mind, revealed a requirement

that although the freezing indicates sufficient leeway for subjective

satisfaction, the likeliness of the material being used for untoward

Page 38 of 46

purposes has to be reduced in writing by the concerned officer, so

does the suspicion of commission of crime leading the flying squad

to seize articles/cash. This recording of reasons serves to

demonstrate the reasons as to why such a procedure was resorted

to. Collectively, all of these aspects meet the suggestion of the

learned amici that hardships should not be caused to the common

citizens. It goes without saying that once reasons are to be

recorded, an essential aspect thereof shall be the information that

led the team to spring into action against a particular incident.

17.2 The second suggestion is with regard to real-time tracking of

each seizure made by the teams of the EC, demonstrating digitally

at which stage each seizure is at. This is in furtherance of

transparency.

This suggestion appears to be justified. Each seizure will have

to be given an identification number through which its stage can

be tracked by interested people, medical personnel, activists, etc.

Implementation across the board, however, is not something that

can be directed. Agreeing with the suggestion, as made, by the EC

may bring this out first as a private project and then in stages

across India, keeping in view the logistical requirement of

maintaining such a live E-Ledger.

Page 39 of 46

17.3 With respect to effective legislation and prosecution, the EC

itself has made certain suggestions. They are to the effect that (a)

The investigating officer shall make all possible endeavors to

complete investigations within one year; (b) through the nodal

officer of the ED such investigating officer shall submit for perusal

and in furtherance of superintendence by the EC, quarterly reports

regarding such investigation after approval of the senior

superintendence of the police/ Deputy Comm issioner of the

concerned area; (c) when such timeline of completion of

investigation i.e. one year can not be complied with, the reasons

therefor shall be duly recorded and forwarded to the EC; (d) in every

district there shall be at least one or more designated special courts

for dealing with these cases on a fast-track basis. Endeavor shall

be made to complete trial in regard thereto within complete trial

within one year from filing of the chargesheet.

Timely completion of the investigation is a recognized part of

the Criminal Justice System. The under investigation tag can not

be allowed to hang endlessly upon the heads of individuals. This

becomes all the more important in the context of election-related

matters where the public has a right to know, whether of not the

candidate of their choice has indulged in corrupt practices or

Page 40 of 46

inducements which would be deemed illegal, unethical, unsavory

and unacceptable. At the same time, a candidate who has not

indulged in any such practice does not deserve to be maligned,

possibly by his opposing concept of being under investigation by

the EC. By extension of this very same logic, suggestions (b) and

(c) also appear to be in line with the established principles of law.

Regarding suggestion (d), which is with respect to the designation

of a special court to deal with cases concerning MPs / MLAs, we

find there to be merit in this suggestion. This is for the reason that

the electoral process is once in a five-year occurrence and it is

imperative that before the next election cycle, the cases instituted

in the previous election cycle are taken to their logical conclusion.

This goes a long way in informing the public regarding the bona

fides of a particular candidate. Once the public has all information

about a candidate, only then can they make an informed decision,

the next time around. In so far as a timeline for disposal of such

cases is concerned, however, while it is true that all efforts should

be made for expeditious disposal, the imposition of a standard

timeline would be ineffective and in ignorance of ground realities of

the criminal justice system. Ordered accordingly. Hopefully the

Page 41 of 46

respective High Courts shall take adequate measures in this

regard.

17.4 The withdrawal of cases is indeed an issue of importance

raised in these proceedings. We have already extracted supra the

stand of the EC supra in para 14. It is suggested that when the

concerned government is desirous of withdrawing a particular

case, the reasons therefore and the material supporting such

decision should be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State,

who shall give their view thereon within a fixed time period of twelve

(12) weeks. The views of the public prosecutor should also be

ascertained. After all these steps are complied with, the material

gathered should be placed before the High Court, and it is then the

Court that should take a decision thereon.

As already noted above, the stand of the EC is that cases should

not be withdrawn as the norm. It is not a hidden truth, however,

that changes in political dispensation often lead to such decisions

being taken. Needless to say, such practice is entirely anti-thetical

to the spirit of an unbiased criminal justice system, which is a

hallmark of a constitutionally governed republic, specially one like

India where the separation of powers is clearly recognized, and as

far as possible, enforced. This Court, in State of Kerala v. K.

Page 42 of 46

Ajith,

17

formulated the principles regarding withdrawal of cases

under Section 321 CrPC. They are extracted as under:

“25. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this

Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section

321CrPC can now be formulated:

25.1. Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a

prosecution to the Public Prosecutor but the consent of the

court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution.

25.2. The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from a

prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of

evidence but also to further the broad ends of public

justice.

25.3. The Public Prosecutor must formulate an

independent opinion before seeking the consent of the

court to withdraw from the prosecution.

25.4. While the mere fact that the initiative has come from

the Government will not vitiate an application for

withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the

reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the Public

Prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the

prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons.

25.5. In deciding whether to grant its consent to a

withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it

has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before

deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be

satisfied that:

(a) The function of the Public Prosecutor has not been

improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere

with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or

purposes;

(b) The application has been made in good faith, in the

interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or

stifle the process of law;

(c) The application does not suffer from such improprieties

or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent

were to be given;

(d) The grant of consent subserves the administration of

justice; and

(e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior

purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which

the Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to maintain.

25.6. While determining whether the withdrawal of the

prosecution subserves the administration of justice, the

court would be justified in scrutinising the nature and

17

(2021) 17 SCC 318

Page 43 of 46

gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life

especially where matters involving public funds and the

discharge of a public trust are implicated.

25.7. In a situation where both the trial Judge and the

Revisional Court have concurred in granting or refusing

consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under

Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution

before disturbing concurrent findings. The Court may in

exercise of the well-settled principles attached to the

exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there

has been a failure of the trial Judge or of the High Court to

apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or

withhold consent.”

In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

18, a Bench of

Three-Judges had directed that cases concerning sitting Members

of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies should be

withdrawn only with the leave of the High Court. 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.

18

(2021) 20 SCC 599

Page 44 of 46

DIRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

18. Keeping in view the above, i.e., the discussion made above,

reference to case laws, the detailed affidavits of the parties, and

the submission of the learned amici, this Court issues the following

directions:

a. When a seizure of cash or other assets takes place, the

authority affecting the seizure, must, within 24 hours, report the

same to the District Magistrate /Additional District

Magistrate/Court having competent jurisdiction along with written

reasons disclosing the prima facie nexus between the cash or other

asset seized and the suspected electoral offence.

b. When FIRs are registered, the Investigation Officer (IO)

entrusted with the investigation thereof shall make every possible

endeavour to complete investigations thereinto, within a year, from

the date of registration. If this timeline is exceeded, reasons

therefor shall be recorded and communicated to the E lection

Commission of India;

c. The investigating officer shall submit a quarterly status

report regarding the investigation to the EC through the Nodal

Officer, after due approval of the Senior Superintendent of

Page 45 of 46

Police/the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned

district;

d. When Static Surveillance Teams (SST) during checks find

money in excess of Rs. 10 lacs, information about the same shall

be forwarded to the income tax authorities.

e. All endeavours ought to be made for expeditious disposal of

cases against candidates/sitting MPs/MLAs keeping in view the

recurrent nature of elections. For this purpose, it is directed that

the High Courts may, by following respective procedures, designate

courts for the purposes of prompt hearing and disposal of such

cases.

f. For withdrawal of cases against candidates in a particular

election cycle, the approval of the concerned High Court is

mandatory in view of K.Ajith (supra) and Ashwani Kumar

Upadhyay (supra).

g. The affidavit of the EC that details the number of cases

pending in connection with the Lok Sabha (2024) and Assembly

elections (2019-25), shows quite a large percentage of pendency.

The concerned courts should make all efforts to take the cases to

the logical conclusion with utmost expedition.

Page 46 of 46

19. Let a compliance report regarding these directions be filed by

the Election Commission of India and the respective State

Governments on or before November 18, 2026.

................………….……..……………..J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

.................……….………..……………..J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 17, 2026