New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea which challenged the validity of a provision of the Income Tax Act that allows political parties to receive “anonymous” cash donations below Rs 2,000.
The plea said this lack of transparency undermines the purity of the election process as it deprives voters of the crucial knowledge about the source of political funding, including the donors and their motives, preventing them from making a rational, intelligent and fully informed decision while casting their vote.
The apex court issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission and others seeking their responses on the petition, which has also sought a direction to the poll panel to prescribe as a condition for registration of a political party and allotment of the election symbol that no amount can be received in cash by any political party.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the matter would be listed for hearing after four weeks.
At the outset, the bench asked senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who appeared for petitioner Khem Singh Bhati along with advocate Sneha Kalita, as to why they have not approached the high court first.
“Let the high court consider this,” the bench said.
Hansaria said the plea concerns all political parties and the funding to them across the country.
The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued notices to the poll panel, the Centre and others, including several political parties like the BJP and Congress.
The plea sought the striking down of Clause (d) of section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unconstitutional, and also referred to the apex court’s 2024 judgement which scrapped the electoral bonds scheme.
“The petitioner is seeking direction that the political parties must disclose the name and all other particulars of the person paying any amount of money to it, and no amount can be received in cash so as to maintain transparency in the political funding,” the plea, filed through advocate Jayesh K Unnikrishnan, said.
Section 13A of the Act deals with the special provision relating to the incomes of political parties.
The plea said section 13A was introduced in the Act and income of a political party received by way of interest on securities, income from house property or income from other sources and any income by way of voluntary contributions are exempted from the computation of total income.
The plea has also sought a direction to the poll panel to scrutinise Form 24A contribution reports of all recognised political parties and to require them to deposit the amount received by way of contributions for which address and/or PAN have not been furnished.
It said the EC should be directed to issue notices to the defaulting political parties under the Election Symbol Order, 1968, as to why the reserved symbol shall not be suspended or withdrawn for failure to submit Form 24A contribution reports with full particulars within a prescribed period.
The plea said the poll panel should be directed that accounts of all political parties shall be maintained in such form as may be prescribed and audited by independent auditors appointed by it.
It has also sought a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to scrutinise the income tax returns and audit reports filed by political parties under sections 142 and 143 of the Income Tax Act for the last five years.
The plea said that the CBDT should be directed to initiate appropriate proceedings for the levy of tax, penalty and prosecution for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 13A of the Income Tax Act read with Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act deals with the declaration of donations received by political parties.
The plea claimed the cause of action arose when the political parties filed their contribution reports and audit reports in September and November 2024 and in August 2025, giving “incomplete details” in their reports.
“The injury to the public is the violation of the fundamental right to information of the voter, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This violation is primarily caused by section 13A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows political parties to receive anonymous cash donations below Rs 2,000,” the plea said.
It said this lack of transparency deprives voters of the crucial knowledge about the donors and their motives, preventing them from making an informed decision while casting their vote.
“Ultimately, this undermines the purity of the election process and compromises the integrity and accountability of a healthy democracy by allowing the potential influence of undisclosed or tainted money,” the plea said.
It said that with the phenomenal increase in digital payments in India, the bulk of transactions are done through UPI.
“Thus, with the advent of UPI revolution in the country, permitting exemption of income received by way of contribution in cash below Rs 2,000 under section 13A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can no more be justified and is manifestly arbitrary and has no nexus to the object of maintaining transparency in the funding of political parties,” it said.
The plea also referred to the apex court’s 2024 judgement, which struck down the electoral bonds scheme.
The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.
