The Supreme Court has emphasized that all political parties must adhere to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directive issued in October 2016, which prohibits the use of public funds, government properties, or machinery for promoting their agendas or election symbols. This observation was made while the court declined to issue a directive for a CBI investigation or to order the recovery of funds from Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Mayawati. The funds in question were reportedly used for erecting statues during her tenure as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Mayawati, who served as the state’s Chief Minister from 2007 to 2012, oversaw the installation of statues of herself, BSP founder Kanshiram, various social reformers, and elephants, which symbolize the party’s election emblem. The court, however, refrained from addressing the plea for recovering the funds used for these installations but reiterated the need for strict compliance with the ECI’s directive.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the ECI’s 2016 directive, along with any subsequent modifications or substitutes, must be followed by all political parties, including the BSP. The observation was part of the court’s order in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2009 by advocate Ravi Kant and another individual. The petition alleged that Mayawati had misused public resources to build these statues.
The petitioners had initially approached the Delhi High Court, which declined to entertain their plea. However, the high court did issue certain directions to the Election Commission, which led to the issuance of the October 2016 directive. This directive explicitly stated that political parties are prohibited from using public funds, properties, or government machinery to advertise their agendas or promote their election symbols.
The Election Commission further clarified its stance in a subsequent order dated January 5, 2017. It noted that since the statues in question had already been erected, the 2016 directive could not be applied retrospectively to penalize the BSP. The commission also reiterated that any future activity involving public funds or government resources to promote a party’s election symbol could result in action against the party.
While the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the high court’s decision, it reinforced the importance of upholding the ECI’s directive to ensure fairness in the electoral process.
