Election Law Case: Mihir Kumar Thakur v. Election Commission , NKP 2062, Vol. 47, No. 5, P.593, DN: 7541
Case: Mandamus
Petitioner: Janahit Sanrakshan Manch through Advocate Mihir Kumar Thakur and Others
Respondents: Election Commission and Others
Decision Number: 7541
This case concerns transparency in election financing and the requirement of a clean and fair election.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Janahit Sanrakshan Manch, through Advocate Mihir Kumar Thakur, filed a writ petition concerning the general election scheduled for 2059/07/27. The petitioner argued that political parties and candidates could spend large amounts of money and collect donations from unknown sources, which could influence voters and affect the free, fair and clean election process. The petitioner therefore sought an order requiring political parties to disclose their election income, sources of funds and election expenditure, and to have such accounts properly audited and submitted to the Election Commission.
The petitioner relied, among other things, on the right to information under Article 16 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2047, and referred to the duties and powers of the Election Commission under existing election laws. The petitioner also requested that election laws be amended to regulate matters such as political donations, disclosure of sources of election funds, auditing of political party accounts, and limits on election expenditure.
During the case, the general election scheduled for 2059/07/27 was postponed. Further, the Political Parties Act, 2058 came into force on 2059/05/27 and introduced provisions requiring registered political parties to maintain accounts, have them audited, submit annual financial reports to the Election Commission, and make those reports public. However, the Election Commission informed the Court that the required annual reports had not yet been submitted, and consequently the Commission had not published the required reports either.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether political parties and candidates’ election income and expenditure should be made publicly transparent to ensure a clean and fair election.
2. Whether the existing legal provisions requiring political parties to disclose and audit their financial information were being effectively implemented.
3. Whether the Election Commission should take necessary measures to implement existing law and address matters not adequately regulated by law.
Decision of the Court:
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court held that excessive election spending and undisclosed political funding can affect the fairness of elections. Since the election scheduled for 2059/07/27 had already been postponed, no order was needed for that election. However, the Court found that financial transparency in elections was still important and directed the Election Commission to effectively implement the existing financial-disclosure provisions and make necessary legal arrangements for matters not covered by law.
Principle Established:
Transparency in the election finances of political parties and candidates is essential for ensuring clean and fair elections, as undisclosed funding and excessive expenditure can influence voters and distort the electoral process. Existing legal provisions on financial disclosure must be effectively implemented, and additional legal measures should be introduced where existing laws are insufficient.
