Digital Campaigns in India: Accountability Gaps Exposed

Syllabus

GS 2

• Digital campaign
• Election Commission of India

Why in the News

The article highlights how India’s election regulations lag behind digital campaigning realities, much like the challenges faced in implementing effective environmental clearances. Using the Bihar Assembly election as a case study, it shows that third-party actors outspend official parties, achieve higher visibility, and escape accountability. The absence of disclosure norms for surrogate campaigners creates opaque financial flows, undermining transparency and fairness in digital democracy, reminiscent of the issues surrounding ex post facto environmental clearances.

Introduction: A Campaign Rulebook Outpaced by Technology

• India’s electoral regulations were designed for an era when political persuasion flowed primarily through parties and candidates, similar to how early environmental laws didn’t anticipate modern industrial complexities.
• Digital platforms have transformed elections into a multi-actor ecosystem, involving:
  • Campaign consultancies
  • Influencers
  • Advocacy groups
  • Data and advertising intermediaries
• The Bihar Assembly election highlights a structural mismatch between:
  • Who influences voters, and
  • Who is regulated by law

This situation mirrors the challenges in environmental jurisprudence, where new technologies and practices often outpace regulatory frameworks.

The Legal Framework Governing Election Campaigns

1. Existing Regulatory Architecture

• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA):
  • Section 77 mandates candidates to disclose election expenditure.
  • Political parties must submit campaign expenditure reports to the Election Commission (EC).
• Election Commission Guidelines:
  • Pre-certification of political advertisements by the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC).
  • Prohibition on campaigning during the silence period.

2. Core Regulatory Assumption

• Regulations presume that:
  • Campaigning is conducted by or on behalf of parties and candidates.
  • Expenditure and messaging can therefore be directly traced and audited. This assumption no longer holds in digital elections, much like how the Forest Conservation Act struggles to address modern deforestation challenges.

The Bihar Assembly Election as a Case Study

Methodology

• Data sourced from Meta’s Ad Library.
• Period analysed: 30 days before the final phase of polling.
• Advertisers spending more than ₹1 lakh were examined.
• Clear distinction made between:
  • Official party/candidate pages
  • Third-party or surrogate campaigners
• Third-party entities:
  • Outspent official actors
  • Generated over twice the impressions
• Indicates a shift in communicative power away from regulated actors.

Campaign Efficiency Gap

• For comparable spending: Third-party campaigns achieved significantly higher circulation
• Raises critical questions:
  • Who truly controls voter influence in digital elections?
  • Why are regulated actors less effective?

This efficiency gap in digital campaigning is analogous to the challenges faced in implementing the Coastal Regulation Zone norms, where unregulated activities often have outsized impacts.

Age-wise Consumption Patterns

1. Youth as the Primary Target

• Nearly three-fourths of all digital political content was consumed by individuals aged 13–34.
• Indicates:
  • Early political socialisation
  • Long-term narrative shaping beyond election day

2. Divergent Audience Reach

• Third-party actors show:
  • Broader demographic penetration
  • Greater resonance beyond young voters

The Accountability Gap in Regulation

1. Narrow Regulatory Lens

• EC advisories remain focused on:
  • Parties
  • Candidates
• Third-party actors operate outside formal oversight, despite:
  • Sustained campaigning
  • Continued advertising even during silence periods

This situation is reminiscent of the challenges in enforcing the polluter pays principle in environmental cases, where identifying and holding responsible parties accountable can be complex.

2. Delayed and Inadequate Responses

• October 21 EC notification:
  • Extended certification requirements to “any individual or organisation”
  • Limited only to print media
  • Applies only to polling day and preceding day Fails to address the reality that digital influence peaks weeks or months earlier, much like how retrospective environmental clearances often fail to mitigate ongoing environmental damage.

Campaign Finance: The Hidden Circuits of Influence

1. Incomplete Disclosure Norms

• Parties must disclose: What they spend
• They are not required to disclose: What others spend on their behalf

This lack of transparency in digital campaign finance echoes the challenges in implementing comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments, where indirect impacts are often overlooked.

2. Reverse Flow of Funding

• Evidence of:
  • Third-party entities sponsoring ads on official party pages
• Example:
  • Advertisements on the Janata Dal (United) Meta page funded by an entity named “The Spectrum”

3. Consequences of This Inversion

• Understatement of actual campaign expenditure
• Blurring of lines between:
  • Authorised spending
  • Unaccounted political influence
• Creation of a formally invisible influence economy

This situation undermines the principles of environmental democracy in the digital space, where transparency and public participation are crucial for informed decision-making.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

Supreme Court Precedent

• In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. M/s Gemini TV (2004):
  • The Court held that no individual or entity may campaign for the benefit of a party or candidate.
• Yet:
  • This principle remains weakly enforced in the digital domain

Why Timing Matters in Digital Regulation

• Digital campaigns:
  • Build influence gradually through repeated exposure
  • Shape perceptions well before formal campaign periods
• Regulations activated only near polling day:
  • Are reactive rather than preventive
  • Fail to undo narrative effects already entrenched

This challenge is similar to the issues surrounding ex-post facto environmental clearances, where regulatory action often comes too late to prevent environmental damage.

Broader Implications for Democratic Integrity

• Unequal regulation creates:
  • Asymmetric influence
  • Distorted electoral competition
• Persistent opacity erodes:
  • Public trust
  • Perceived fairness of elections
• Digital democracy risks becoming:
  • High-impact
  • Low-accountability

These issues mirror the challenges in maintaining a pollution-free environment in the digital space, where unregulated actors can have outsized impacts on the electoral ecosystem.

Way Forward: Recalibrating Electoral Governance

1. Redefining Stakeholders

• Recognise:
  • Campaign firms
  • Influencers
  • Advocacy groups
  • Data intermediaries as electoral stakeholders

2. Expanding Disclosure Obligations

• Mandatory reporting of:
  • Third-party spending
  • Sponsorship of official party content
• Platform-level transparency on:
  • Funding sources
  • Targeting criteria

3. Platform-Specific Regulation

• Digital platforms must be:
  • Actively integrated into election oversight
  • Held accountable for compliance and disclosure

This approach to regulating digital campaigns should draw inspiration from the precautionary principle in environmental law, aiming to prevent harm before it occurs.

Conclusion

• The challenge before Indian democracy is no longer one of recognition but of resolve.
• Without extending regulatory oversight beyond parties and candidates:
  • Opaque financial flows will persist
  • Electoral influence will remain unevenly accountable
• A fair digital democracy demands:
  • Transparency in funding
  • Equity in regulation
  • Accountability across the entire campaign ecosystem

Just as the Vanashakti judgment emphasized the need for comprehensive environmental protection, a similar holistic approach is needed to safeguard the integrity of our digital democratic processes.

UPSC Mains Practice Question

Q: “Critically examine how third-party actors influence elections and discuss the reforms required to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in the digital campaigning ecosystem”. (15 marks)