• From Parties to Platforms: Election rules were designed for a system dominated by political parties and candidates. Today, persuasion often flows through digital platforms, influencers, and intermediaries rather than direct party outreach.
• Rise of Shadow Campaigns: Third-party actors—campaign firms, interest groups, and social media influencers—spend heavily on digital ads, often outpacing official party expenditure. This creates accountability gaps since regulations still target only parties and candidates.
• Professionalisation of Politics: Since 2014, campaigns have increasingly relied on pollsters, data analysts, spin doctors, and consultants. This “permanent campaign machine” professionalises politics, making strategy and voter targeting more sophisticated.
• Opaque Funding Channels: Surrogate campaigns and third-party advertising allow money to flow outside formal disclosure requirements, raising concerns about transparency and fairness.
• Regulatory Lag: The Election Commission mandates pre-certification of ads and disclosure of social media spending, but these rules don’t fully capture the influence of non-party actors

• Articles 324–329 of the Constitution of India:
  • Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the ECI.
  • Article 325: Prohibits exclusion from electoral rolls on grounds of religion, race, caste, or sex.
  • Article 326: Guarantees adult suffrage (all citizens above 18 can vote).
  • Articles 327–329: Empower Parliament and state legislatures to make laws on elections and bar judicial interference in electoral matters except via election petitions.

• Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA 1950)
  • Governs preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
  • Defines qualifications and disqualifications for voter registration.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA 1951)
  • Regulates conduct of elections, qualifications/disqualifications of candidates, and corrupt practices.
  • Provides for election petitions and adjudication of disputes.
• Delimitation Acts
  • Define boundaries of constituencies to ensure fair representation.
• Other Laws
  • Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) apply to offences like bribery, intimidation, and undue influence during elections

Emergence of Shadow Campaigns

1. Digital platforms & micro-targeting
   Social media, messaging apps, and data profiling allow tailored political messages to reach specific groups discreetly.
2. Regulatory gaps
   Election laws often lag behind technology, leaving grey zones around online ads, influencers, and third-party campaigners.
3. Low cost, high impact
   Compared to traditional rallies and ads, covert digital outreach is cheaper and scalable.
4. Plausible deniability
   Parties can distance themselves from misinformation or polarising content spread by “unofficial” supporters.

• Shadow campaigns tend to reach younger, highly online voters most intensely, but third‑party and “unofficial” digital operations often penetrate a broader age and social spectrum than official party messaging.
• Their influence patterns rely on data-driven microtargeting, networks of influencers, and opaque funding, which together allow them to shape narratives across diverse voter segments with relatively low visibility and accountability.

• Opaque Funding Channels
  • Surrogate campaigns and third-party advertising allow money to flow outside formal disclosure requirements.
  • Political parties often benefit indirectly from spending by consultants, firms, or interest groups that are not legally bound to report expenditures.
• Electoral Bonds Controversy
  • Introduced in 2018 as a mechanism for anonymous political donations, electoral bonds have been criticized for lack of transparency and potential corporate influence.
  • The Supreme Court has heard petitions challenging their constitutionality, highlighting concerns about hidden financial entanglements.
• Influencer & Digital Ad Spending
  • Payments to influencers and digital platforms often bypass official campaign accounts, making it difficult to trace the true source of funds.

• Regulatory Blind Spots
  • The Representation of the People Act (1951) requires disclosure of candidate and party expenditure but does not cover third-party actors.
  • Election Commission guidelines mandate pre-certification of ads and disclosure of social media spending, but enforcement is limited.
• Shadow Campaigns
  • Third-party actors often outspend official campaigns, creating a parallel ecosystem of influence that is largely unregulated.
• Weak Enforcement
  • Monitoring digital ad spending and influencer-driven campaigns remains difficult due to fragmented oversight and lack of real-time transparency.
• Judicial Concerns
  • Courts have flagged the need for stronger accountability mechanisms, especially in light of electoral bonds and surrogate campaigns.

• Party-Centric Laws vs. Third-Party Reality
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires disclosure of candidate and party expenditure, but does not cover third-party actors like influencers, consultants, or interest groups.
  • This creates a contradiction: official campaigns are tightly regulated, while surrogate campaigns operate in a legal grey zone.
• Electoral Bonds vs. Transparency Norms
  • Electoral bonds were introduced to formalize donations, but their anonymity contradicts the principle of transparency in political finance.
  • Courts have flagged this tension, as voters cannot trace who funds parties.
• Digital Ads vs. Pre-Certification Rules
  • The Election Commission mandates pre-certification of political ads, but enforcement is limited to traditional media.
  • Digital platforms often escape scrutiny, creating a contradiction between law and practice.
• Judicial Oversight vs. Constitutional Autonomy
  • Article 324 grants the Election Commission autonomy, yet recent legislative changes (like the 2023 appointment bill) raise questions about independence, contradicting the spirit of impartial oversight.

• Monitoring Digital Campaigns
  • Real-time tracking of influencer-driven content and micro-targeted ads is technologically difficult.
  • Platforms like Meta and Google host vast volumes of political ads, many of which bypass disclosure norms.
• Opaque Funding Flows
  • Surrogate campaigns and electoral bonds make it hard to trace money, weakening enforcement of spending limits.
• Weak Penalties
  • Violations of campaign finance rules often result in minor penalties or delayed adjudication, reducing deterrence.
• Fragmented Oversight
  • The Election Commission lacks the resources and technological infrastructure to monitor digital campaigning effectively.
• Judicial Delays
  • Election petitions and disputes often take years to resolve, undermining timely accountability.

• Hidden Funding Flows: Electoral bonds and third-party spending obscure the true sources of campaign finance, preventing voters from knowing who is backing parties.
• Surrogate Campaigns: Influencers, firms, and interest groups run parallel campaigns without disclosure obligations, creating a black box of persuasion.
• Digital Ads: Micro-targeted ads on platforms like Meta and Google often bypass pre-certification rules, making it difficult to track content and expenditure.
• Incomplete Oversight: Current laws focus on parties and candidates, leaving third-party actors outside formal accountability structures.

• Unequal Playing Field: Wealthy actors and well-funded campaigns gain disproportionate influence, sidelining smaller parties and grassroots voices.
• Algorithmic Amplification: Social media platforms can amplify divisive or sensational content, skewing voter perceptions.
• Voter Disenfranchisement Risks: Controversies around electoral roll revisions raise concerns about exclusion of eligible voters.
• Delayed Justice: Election petitions often take years to resolve, undermining timely accountability and fairness.

Download Pdf