In the bustling political landscape of Gujarat, a state often hailed as a model for economic growth and governance under long-standing BJP rule, a startling revelation has emerged that challenges the transparency of India’s electoral system. A recent investigative report by Dainik Bhaskar, one of India’s leading Hindi newspapers, has uncovered a web of obscurity surrounding ten little-known political parties registered in the state. These entities, often referred to as “ghost parties” in media discourse, received a staggering ₹4,300 crore in donations over five years—from the financial year 2019-20 to 2023-24—yet their on-ground presence and electoral impact remain negligible, raising serious questions about money laundering, political funding loopholes, and regulatory oversight.
The investigation, published just days ago, paints a picture of parties that exist primarily on paper, with minimal public visibility, anonymous leadership, and glaring discrepancies in financial reporting. Dainik Bhaskar’s team delved into official documents submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI), including election expenditure reports and annual audit statements, to expose these anomalies. What they found was not just financial irregularity but a systemic vulnerability that could undermine the integrity of democratic processes.
The Scale of the Donations and the Parties Involved
At the heart of the probe is the enormous influx of funds into these unrecognised parties, which collectively amassed ₹4,300 crore from donors across 23 states in India. This figure dwarfs the electoral footprints of these groups, which fielded only 43 candidates across three major elections: the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha polls, and the 2022 Gujarat Assembly elections. In total, these candidates garnered a mere 54,069 votes—a fraction of the state’s electorate, which numbers in the crores.
Among the parties highlighted in the report, Lokshahi stands out as the top recipient, pocketing ₹1,045 crore during the period. Other named entities include:
- Bharatiya Janparishad
- Saurashtra Janata Party
- Satyavadi Rakshak Party
- Lokshahi Satta Party
- Mother Land National Party
- New India United Party
- BNZD (full name not expanded in reports)
- Jan-Man Party
- Human Rights National Party
These parties are registered under the Representation of the People Act but lack national or state recognition from the ECI, meaning they do not qualify for reserved symbols and operate on the fringes of mainstream politics. Donations flowed in from diverse sources, but the report notes a lack of transparency in donor identities, with many contributions labeled as “anonymous” or routed through opaque channels.
Discrepancies in Financial Reporting: A Tale of Two Ledgers
One of the most damning aspects of the investigation is the stark contrast between the parties’ election expenditure reports and their annual audit statements. According to the election reports filed with the Gujarat Chief Electoral Officer, these parties declared a combined expenditure of just ₹39.02 lakh across the three elections—a paltry sum that suggests minimal campaigning, such as basic pamphlet distribution or small rallies.
However, the audit reports tell a vastly different story. These documents, which are supposed to provide a comprehensive view of the parties’ finances, recorded total spending of approximately ₹3,500 crore over the five-year span. Breaking it down further for election-specific expenses in the audits:
- Bharatiya Janparishad: ₹177 crore
- Saurashtra Janata Party: ₹141 crore
- Satyavadi Rakshak Party: ₹10.53 crore
- Lokshahi Satta Party: ₹22.82 crore
- Mother Land National Party: ₹86.36 lakh
Other parties either omitted election expense details from their audits or failed to adhere to the prescribed formats. This discrepancy—₹39 lakh vs. ₹3,500 crore—points to potential misuse of funds, where donations might have been siphoned off for non-electoral purposes, possibly including money laundering or proxy funding for larger political players.
Dainik Bhaskar’s journalists went beyond document analysis, attempting to track down party chiefs for interviews. The responses were telling: many leaders professed ignorance about the financial details, deferring to their chartered accountants (CAs). For instance, Amit Chaturvedi, head of the New India United Party, admitted he would “have to ask the CA” about donations, noting that as a small party, their statements are often removed from public view quickly. Biren Patel of the Satyavadi Rakshak Party echoed this, saying he doesn’t handle accounting and relies on professionals, while hinting at plans to field 80-90 candidates in upcoming municipal elections.
Notably, only a few parties like BNZD, Satyavadi Rakshak, and Jan-Man submitted complete reports for all years, while Human Rights National failed to file any. The physical addresses of these parties were not detailed in the report, but the investigation implied they operate from low-profile or shared locations, further enhancing their “ghost-like” status.
Methodology of the Investigation
Dainik Bhaskar’s probe was methodical and data-driven. The team sourced contribution reports from the Gujarat Chief Electoral Officer’s office and cross-referenced them with ECI filings. They analyzed five years of audit reports for inconsistencies and reached out to party officials for clarification. Political analyst Dr. Sumanth Raman, quoted in the report via social media, underscored the gravity of the findings, suggesting these parties might serve as conduits for untraceable funds.
This isn’t the first time small parties have come under scrutiny for financial opacity—electoral bonds, scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2024, had similar issues—but the scale here is unprecedented for regional outfits.
Political Reactions and Calls for Accountability
The revelations have sparked immediate backlash, with opposition leaders seizing on them to criticize the ruling establishment. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi was among the first to respond, posting on social media to question the Election Commission’s silence. In a pointed statement, Gandhi asked: “Where did this money come from? Who is running these parties? Where did the money go?” He urged the EC to investigate thoroughly, demanding affidavits from the parties and warning against any attempts to “change laws to hide the data.”
Gandhi linked the issue to broader concerns about electoral integrity, referencing his ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar, where he alleged vote tampering. As of now, the ECI has not issued an official response, but the controversy has fueled demands for stricter regulations on party funding and mandatory disclosures.
Implications for Indian Democracy
This investigation by Dainik Bhaskar shines a light on the underbelly of political financing in India, where small, unrecognised parties can become vehicles for shadowy transactions. In Gujarat, a state with a history of vibrant multi-party contests but dominated by the BJP since 1995, such entities raise fears of influence peddling or black money circulation. With municipal elections on the horizon, the report could prompt greater voter awareness and regulatory reforms.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: transparency in political funding isn’t just a buzzword—it’s essential to preserving the sanctity of elections. Dainik Bhaskar’s exposé serves as a reminder that investigative journalism remains a vital pillar in holding power accountable, even in the face of anonymity and opacity.
