Syllabus: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.
Context:
- India’s election framework regulates campaigns no longer dominated solely by parties and candidates.
- Political persuasion has shifted towards digital platforms and intermediaries, challenging traditional oversight.
- Election Commission advisories during Bihar Assembly elections highlighted this regulatory mismatch.
Existing Regulatory Framework
- EC mandated pre-certification of political advertisements by Media Certification and Monitoring Committees (MCMC).
- Section 77(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951, requires parties to disclose social media expenditure.
- Regulatory focus remains limited to political parties and candidates.
Limited Regulatory Lens
- Digital outreach increasingly driven by third-party actors like influencers, campaign firms, and interest groups.
- EC’s October 21 notification included individuals and organisations but only for print media.
- Restrictions applied merely to polling day and preceding day, ignoring longer digital campaign cycles.
- Digital campaigns often peak weeks before polling, beyond regulatory timelines.
Who Pays and Who Influences
- Digital campaigning now constitutes the largest share of election expenditure.
- Meta Ads Library data shows 55 advertisers spent over ₹1 lakh in Bihar election period.
- Only 23 advertisers were official parties or candidates.
- 32 advertisers were third-party or surrogate actors, operating outside formal disclosure norms.
Reach, Demographics, and Efficiency
- Third-party actors outspent parties and candidates while achieving greater visibility.
- With similar average spending, third-party campaigns generated nearly double impressions.
- Youth aged 13–34 years consumed over 74% of digital political content.
- Party advertisements concentrated among 13–34 age groups, while third-party content reached older demographics.
- Third-party advertisers showed higher efficiency, generating 2.60 crore impressions per ₹10 lakh spent.
- Official party pages generated only 1.54 crore impressions per ₹10 lakh spent.
Opaque Financial Linkages
- Some official party advertisements were financed by external entities.
- Example: Advertisements on Janata Dal (United)’s page were funded by “The Spectrum”.
- Such spending may not appear in official expenditure statements, understating true campaign costs.
- Influence appears bi-directional, with third parties financing official messaging.
Accountability and Legal Gaps
- Supreme Court (Gemini TV case, 2004) barred third-party political advertising benefiting candidates.
- EC guidelines failed to extend this principle to digital third-party actors.
- Many continued campaigning even on polling day, beyond effective scrutiny.
Delayed and Inadequate Regulation
- Campaign finance disclosures list spending under platform names, obscuring real funders.
- Parties disclose what they spend, not what others spend on their behalf.
- Digital influence accumulates over months, making last-minute restrictions ineffective.
- Absence of updated regulation risks erosion of trust in digital electoral fairness.