3 min readApr 20, 2026 07:01 AM IST
First published on: Apr 20, 2026 at 06:15 AM IST
India’s democracy rests on a simple principle: Elections must be fought on a level playing field. Governments may command the machinery of the state, but that machinery must remain politically neutral. When the resources of governance begin to influence electoral competition, the fairness of democracy itself comes into question.
In recent years, digital governance has dramatically expanded governments’ communication power. Welfare beneficiary databases, SMS gateways, and mass messaging platforms were designed to improve service delivery. However, this very infrastructure has created a new democratic dilemma. Across the country, official communication systems are increasingly being used in ways that resemble political messaging. On March 7, the Kerala High Court examined the Chief Minister’s Office sending bulk WhatsApp messages through external agencies using official databases. Last month, the Supreme Court heard challenges regarding a door-to-door welfare feedback programme ahead of the Kerala elections. Similar questions have arisen at the national level. In March 2024, the Election Commission of India directed the Union government to halt bulk WhatsApp messages under the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign after citizens received letters from the Prime Minister highlighting central schemes even after the election schedule was announced. Data from Google’s Ads Transparency Centre shows, between January and April 2024, the BJP spent about Rs 39 crore on political ads, while the government’s Central Bureau of Communication spent roughly Rs 32 crore promoting official programmes.
This reflects a broader transformation in the relationship between technology and politics. Governments today possess an unprecedented ability to reach millions instantly and repeatedly at minimal cost — an advantage no opposition party or independent formation can match. This creates a structural imbalance. Democracies are not weakened only by illegal actions; they are also weakened when institutional advantages tilt the playing field. The concern is most serious when communication infrastructure is combined with large-scale publicity campaigns funded by taxpayer resources. While informing citizens about public programmes is legitimate, publicity that resembles political promotion, particularly close to elections, raises troubling questions.
India has faced these concerns before. In the 2015 Common Cause vs Union of India case, SC laid down guidelines to prevent taxpayer-funded government advertisements from becoming instruments of political promotion. The digital era now presents a more complex version of the same challenge. This is not simply a question of legality but of democratic fairness. When governments possess overwhelming communication advantages through state-controlled systems, the balance of electoral competition can be distorted, even if no explicit rule is violated. India’s rapid expansion of digital governance has transformed service delivery, but for it to remain a democratic success, one principle must remain non-negotiable: Public communication systems must serve citizens, not political messaging. India needs clearer norms to ensure that instruments of governance do not become instruments of electoral advantage.
The author is chairman, Kerala Election Campaign Committee for INC, and former Leader of Opposition, Kerala Legislative Assembly
