Political Parties
Political Parties in India
The Constitution does not originally mention political parties. The Anti-Defection Law (52nd Amendment, 1985) was the first constitutional recognition. Political parties are registered and regulated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Election Commission classifies parties as national, state, or registered unrecognized parties based on prescribed criteria.
Key Dates
Indian National Congress founded — the oldest political party in India, established in Bombay by A.O. Hume
All India Muslim League founded in Dhaka; became the primary party advocating for Muslim interests and later for Pakistan
Communist Party of India (CPI) founded in Kanpur — oldest surviving left party in India
Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded by Syama Prasad Mookerjee — precursor to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided for registration of political parties under Section 29A
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order issued by the Election Commission for allocation and recognition of party symbols
Tarkunde Committee was among the earliest to recommend electoral reforms including independent election commission and transparency
52nd Amendment (Anti-Defection Law) added the Tenth Schedule — first constitutional recognition of political parties
Indrajit Gupta Committee recommended partial state funding of elections limited to recognized national and state parties
91st Amendment strengthened the Anti-Defection Law — barred defectors from holding ministerial office, removed "one-third split" exception
Central Information Commission ruled that six national parties are "public authorities" under the RTI Act (parties disputed this)
Electoral bonds introduced as a new method of political funding; anonymous donations to registered parties allowed
Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional in ADR v. UOI, violating the right to information under Article 19(1)(a)
Kovind Committee on "One Nation One Election" recommended simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Indian Constitution does not originally contain any provision regarding political parties. The first constitutional recognition came through the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, which added the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) — this schedule refers to "political parties" and "legislature parties." Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations and unions, which includes the right to form political parties. The primary statutory framework is the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. Section 29A of the RPA provides for the registration of political parties with the Election Commission of India (ECI). Any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party can apply for registration under Section 29A. The party must have a written constitution and its office-bearers must be members of the party. The ECI can register a party subject to the condition that the party's objectives and activities are consistent with the Constitution. The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 governs the classification of parties and allotment of symbols. The ECI has the power to recognize, derecognize, merge, or split parties under this Order. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 13A) provides tax exemptions for political parties, subject to conditions including filing of returns and maintenance of accounts.
Recognition Criteria — National and State Parties
The ECI classifies parties into three categories: national parties, state parties (recognized in specific states), and registered unrecognized parties. A party is recognized as a national party if it fulfils any one of the following conditions: (a) it secures at least 6% of valid votes polled in any four or more states at a general election to the Lok Sabha or State Assembly and wins at least 4 seats in the Lok Sabha from any state or states; (b) it wins at least 2% of the total Lok Sabha seats (i.e., currently 11 seats) from not less than 3 different states; (c) it is recognized as a state party in four or more states. A party is recognized as a state party if it fulfils any one of the following conditions: (a) it secures at least 6% of valid votes polled in the state at a general election to the Lok Sabha or State Assembly and wins at least 2 seats in the State Assembly; (b) it secures at least 6% of valid votes in the state at a Lok Sabha election and wins at least 1 Lok Sabha seat from the state; (c) it wins at least 3% of total seats in the State Assembly or at least 3 seats, whichever is more; (d) it wins at least 1 Lok Sabha seat for every 25 seats (or fraction thereof) allotted to the state. As of 2024, there are 6 national parties, over 50 state parties, and around 2,500 registered unrecognized parties.
Anti-Defection Law — Tenth Schedule
The Anti-Defection Law, introduced by the 52nd Amendment (1985), was the first constitutional provision to directly reference political parties. It was enacted to curb the "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" phenomenon — the frequent floor-crossing by legislators that destabilized governments in the 1960s-70s. The Tenth Schedule provides for disqualification of a member of Parliament or a State Legislature who: (a) voluntarily gives up membership of their political party; (b) votes or abstains from voting contrary to the direction of their party whip, without prior permission (and the party has not condoned the violation within 15 days). An exception exists for merger: when two-thirds of the members of a legislature party agree to merge with another party, it is deemed a valid merger and not defection. Originally, a split by one-third of members was also protected, but the 91st Amendment (2003) deleted the "one-third split" exception, retaining only the two-thirds merger provision. The 91st Amendment also added paragraph 1B, which bars a person disqualified under the Tenth Schedule from being appointed as a Minister. The Speaker/Chairman of the House is the deciding authority on disqualification, but the SC in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) held that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review. In recent years, delays by Speakers in deciding disqualification petitions — sometimes taking years — have undermined the law.
Types of Party Systems
India has evolved from a dominant one-party system to a multi-party system. In the early decades after independence (1952-1967), the Indian National Congress dominated at both the Centre and in most states — political scientists like Rajni Kothari described this as a "one-party dominant system" or the "Congress system." The period 1967-1989 saw the emergence of opposition parties at the state level and the first non-Congress government at the Centre (Janata Party, 1977-79). Since 1989, India has had a truly multi-party system with coalition governments becoming the norm. The era of coalition politics (1989-2014) saw the formation of alliances like the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by BJP and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by Congress. Regional parties like DMK, AIADMK, TMC, SP, BSP, TDP, JD(U), and Shiv Sena have played a crucial role in government formation. India's party system is characterized by ideological diversity (from left-wing CPI(M) to right-wing BJP), caste-based parties (BSP, RJD), regional parties (DMK, TMC, TRS/BRS), and personality-centred parties. The Anti-Defection Law has shaped party discipline, though frequent splits and mergers continue.
Party Funding and Electoral Bonds
Political party funding in India has been a contentious issue. The primary legal sources of funding are: (a) membership fees, (b) sale of party publications, (c) donations from individuals and companies under Section 29B of the RPA and Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, (d) government grants (limited — public funding of elections has been recommended but not implemented), and (e) electoral bonds (introduced in 2018, struck down in 2024). The Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced through the Finance Act, 2017 and operationalized in 2018, allowed donors to purchase bonds from the State Bank of India in specified denominations (Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore) and donate them anonymously to registered political parties. The bonds were bearer instruments — neither the donor's identity was disclosed to the public nor was the political party required to reveal the source. The Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the right to information (Art 19(1)(a)), which includes the voter's right to know about political funding. The Court directed the SBI to disclose all Electoral Bond transaction data. Before electoral bonds, cash donations (below Rs 20,000) were a major source, raising concerns about black money in elections.
Inner-Party Democracy and Organizational Structure
The internal functioning of political parties in India has been a subject of concern. The ECI, under Section 29A of the RPA, requires parties to conduct organizational elections regularly. However, in practice, most parties have poor internal democracy — leadership positions are often hereditary (dynastic politics) or controlled by a small clique. The ECI has limited power to enforce internal democracy — it can require parties to submit updated lists of office-bearers but cannot direct how elections are conducted internally. The Supreme Court in Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) observed that political parties are "quasi-state institutions" and should function democratically. The NCRWC (Venkatachaliah Commission, 2002) recommended that political parties be required to hold organizational elections at regular intervals, maintain transparent accounts, and follow democratic norms in candidate selection. The 2nd ARC (4th Report) recommended that there should be a legislation to regulate the internal functioning of political parties. Despite these recommendations, there is no comprehensive law governing inner-party democracy. The issue of dynastic politics — where party leadership passes from one generation to the next within the same family — affects multiple parties across the political spectrum.
Deregistration and Regulation
The ECI has the power to register political parties under Section 29A of the RPA, but there is no explicit provision for deregistration. In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's position that it has limited power to deregister parties. The ECI can: (a) refuse registration if a party's objectives are not in line with the Constitution; (b) derecognize a party (strip it of its symbol and privileges) if it fails to meet the recognition criteria; (c) take note of parties that do not contest elections but cannot deregister them. This has led to the proliferation of registered parties — as of 2024, nearly 2,800 parties are registered with the ECI, though less than 10% contest elections. The ECI has repeatedly asked Parliament for the power to deregister parties that do not contest elections or violate legal requirements, but no legislative action has been taken. The issue of "dummy candidates" and "shell parties" (parties created to split votes or siphon donations) has been highlighted by the ECI as requiring legislative intervention. The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2008) held that the ECI does not have the power to deregister a political party.
Privileges of Recognized Parties
Recognition as a national or state party confers significant privileges. A recognized party is entitled to: (a) reservation of its election symbol — the symbol is reserved exclusively for the party's candidates in all constituencies where it is recognized; (b) free allocation of time on Doordarshan and All India Radio during elections under the ECI's scheme for equitable time allocation; (c) two sets of electoral rolls free of cost for each constituency where the party is recognized; (d) space for erecting campaign hoardings and posters near polling stations; (e) nomination of "star campaigners" — recognized parties can nominate up to 40 star campaigners (20 for registered unrecognized parties), and the travel expenditure of star campaigners is not counted against the candidate's election expenditure limit under Section 77 of RPA 1951; (f) access to consultation processes — recognized parties are consulted by the ECI on matters like election schedules, voter education programmes, and Model Code of Conduct implementation. A party also gets a common symbol (national parties across India, state parties within their recognized state), which is crucial for voter recognition in a country with low literacy in many areas. Loss of recognition is a serious blow to a party's electoral fortunes.
Coalition Politics and Alliance Formations
Coalition politics has been a defining feature of Indian democracy since 1989. The era of single-party majority governments (Congress domination, 1947-1989) gave way to coalition and alliance politics. Key alliances include the National Democratic Alliance (NDA, formed 1998, led by BJP), United Progressive Alliance (UPA, formed 2004, led by Congress), Left Front (led by CPI(M)), and Third Front (varying combinations of regional parties). Coalition governments face unique challenges: (a) the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) — coalition partners agree on a minimum agenda, which may require compromises on each party's individual platform; (b) coalition dharma — the expectation that allies will support each other on key votes; (c) coalition compulsions — smaller parties can extract disproportionate concessions through threats of withdrawal; (d) policy paralysis — decision-making can be slowed by the need for coalition consensus. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) examined the functioning of coalition governments in the context of centre-state relations. Despite challenges, coalition politics has ensured greater representation of diverse interests and regional voices in national governance.
Criminalization of Politics
The entry of persons with criminal backgrounds into politics is a major governance concern. According to data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the percentage of MPs with declared criminal cases has risen from 24% in 2004 to over 40% in 2024. Section 8 of the RPA, 1951 provides for disqualification on conviction, not on framing of charges, allowing persons with serious pending cases to contest elections. The SC in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) struck down Section 8(4), ending the 3-month appeal window for convicted sitting legislators, but this addresses only post-conviction situations. The Law Commission (255th Report, 2015) recommended that persons charged with offences punishable with imprisonment of 5+ years (where charges have been framed by a court) should be debarred from contesting — this has not been implemented. The SC in its 2020 order directed political parties to publish the criminal antecedents of candidates on their websites and social media within 48 hours of selection, along with reasons for selecting candidates with criminal backgrounds despite the availability of cleaner candidates. Despite these measures, the percentage of "tainted" candidates continues to increase, as parties nominate candidates based on perceived "winnability" rather than criminal record.
State Funding of Elections
State funding of elections — where the government provides financial support to parties and candidates — has been recommended by multiple committees but not implemented. The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) recommended partial state funding limited to recognized national and state parties, covering expenses like fuel, stationery, and microphones — not cash transfers. The committee argued that state funding would reduce dependence on corporate donations and black money. The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) recommended state funding as part of a broader electoral reform package. The Law Commission (1999) suggested that state funding should be introduced only after comprehensive reforms to regulate party finances and prevent misuse. The NCRWC (Venkatachaliah Commission, 2002) supported state funding with conditions including transparency in party accounts and internal democracy. Currently, parties receive limited in-kind support (free broadcast time, electoral rolls) but no direct financial support from the state. Countries like Germany, Sweden, and Brazil have comprehensive public funding systems. India's reluctance stems from concerns about the fiscal burden, the difficulty of designing a fair allocation formula, the risk of taxpayer money going to non-serious parties, and the political challenge of getting parties to agree on a framework that may benefit incumbents or larger parties disproportionately.
One Nation One Election Debate
The concept of simultaneous elections (One Nation One Election) — holding Lok Sabha and all state assembly elections together — has been a subject of intense debate. The Kovind Committee (2024), chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, recommended simultaneous elections and proposed constitutional amendments. Arguments in favour include: reduced election expenditure (the ECI spends approximately Rs 10,000 crore on each general election), minimization of policy disruption due to the Model Code of Conduct (which freezes government decisions for months), reduced deployment of security forces, and better governance continuity. Arguments against include: it undermines federalism by linking state politics to national cycles, it violates the constitutional right of state assemblies to complete their 5-year term, it privileges larger national parties over regional parties, it reduces accountability (voters cannot punish a government mid-term), and it requires massive logistical changes (EVMs, security personnel, voter education). Constitutional amendments needed include changes to Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 85 (dissolution), 172 (duration of state legislatures), 174 (dissolution), and 356 (President's Rule). India held simultaneous elections until 1967, after which the cycle broke due to premature dissolutions. The Law Commission (1999) and the NITI Aayog have also examined the issue.
Symbol Allocation and Disputes
The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 governs the allocation of symbols to parties and candidates. Recognized national parties have their symbols reserved throughout India; recognized state parties have their symbols reserved in the states where they are recognized. Registered unrecognized parties and independent candidates are allotted "free symbols" from a pool maintained by the ECI. The ECI has the authority to decide disputes regarding recognition and symbols under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order. When a party splits, the ECI decides which faction retains the party name and symbol. Notable symbol disputes include: the split of the Indian National Congress in 1969 (Indira Congress vs Organization Congress), the Shiv Sena split (2022-23, ECI allotted the name and symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction), and the NCP split (2023, ECI allotted the name and symbol to the Ajit Pawar faction). The ECI considers factors such as majority in the legislature party, majority in the organizational wing, and majority among office-bearers. The SC in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission (1972) upheld the ECI's power to decide symbol disputes. Frozen symbols are those that were once allotted to recognized parties that have since lost recognition — these symbols remain frozen and are not allotted to other parties until the ECI decides their disposal.
Regional Parties and Federal Democracy
Regional parties have been central to India's democratic evolution, reflecting the country's linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity. Major regional parties include DMK and AIADMK (Tamil Nadu), TMC (West Bengal), SP and BSP (Uttar Pradesh), JD(U) and RJD (Bihar), TDP and YSR Congress (Andhra Pradesh), BRS (Telangana), Shiv Sena (Maharashtra), Akali Dal (Punjab), AGP (Assam), National Conference and PDP (J&K), BJD (Odisha), and JD(S) (Karnataka). Regional parties have governed most Indian states and have been essential coalition partners at the Centre. They articulate state-specific demands — language policy, resource sharing, autonomy, reservation, and cultural identity. The rise of regional parties has strengthened federalism by ensuring that central government policy reflects diverse regional interests. However, critics argue that regional parties promote parochial interests, engage in identity politics, and fragment the national polity. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recognized the legitimate role of regional parties in India's multi-level federal structure. The tension between national and regional parties over issues like GST, river water disputes, and language policy reflects the dynamic nature of Indian federalism.
Election Expenditure and Campaign Finance
The regulation of election expenditure is a critical aspect of party regulation. Section 77 of RPA 1951 requires every candidate to maintain a day-to-day account of election expenditure. The ECI sets maximum expenditure limits: Rs 95 lakh for Lok Sabha elections in larger states (Rs 75 lakh in smaller states) and Rs 40 lakh for state assembly elections in larger states (Rs 28 lakh in smaller states). However, these limits apply only to individual candidates, not to political parties — parties can spend unlimited amounts on campaigning. This creates a legal loophole: expenditure by parties on rallies, media campaigns, and advertising is not counted against the candidate's limit. The Supreme Court in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla (1975) held that expenditure by a political party is to be clubbed with the candidate's expenditure if it is for the benefit of the candidate. However, enforcement has been weak. The expenditure ceiling applies only from the date of nomination filing to the date of results. Paid news — where media coverage is purchased but disguised as editorial content — has emerged as a new form of unaccounted election expenditure. The ECI has directed district monitoring cells to track paid news and report violations. The vast gap between legal expenditure limits and actual spending (estimated to be 10-50 times the ceiling) is the most significant challenge in campaign finance regulation.
Recent Developments and Reforms
Several reforms related to political parties have been implemented or proposed in recent years. The Electoral Bond judgment (2024) brought political funding into the spotlight and led to demands for state funding of elections or a transparent funding mechanism. The ECI's digitization of party registration and reporting has improved transparency. The introduction of the NOTA (None of the Above) option in 2013 (Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India) gave voters the right to reject all candidates, though NOTA votes do not affect election outcomes. The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) held that MPs/MLAs convicted of offences with imprisonment of 2 years or more are immediately disqualified — they cannot continue as legislators pending appeal. The Law Commission (255th Report, 2015) recommended decriminalization of politics through stronger measures to prevent candidates with serious criminal charges from contesting. The mandatory declaration of criminal antecedents, assets, and liabilities by candidates (introduced through SC directions in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2002) has improved voter awareness. However, the percentage of candidates with criminal records contesting elections has increased despite these reforms, highlighting the gap between legal provisions and political reality.
Relevant Exams
Very frequently tested in UPSC Prelims and Mains. Questions focus on recognition criteria for national/state parties, the number of national parties, the Electoral Bond judgment (2024), Section 29A of RPA, the Anti-Defection Law (first constitutional recognition, 91st Amendment changes, Kihoto Hollohan), coalition politics, privileges of recognized parties, One Nation One Election, symbol disputes, and state funding committees. SSC exams test factual details on party registration and recognition.