Section 182: Prohibitions and restrictions regarding political contributions

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 182

Section 182 regulates corporate funding of political parties, prescribing eligibility thresholds, mandatory board approvals, and strict disclosure requirements, fundamentally reaffirmed by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench decision striking down anonymous electoral bonds.

  • Eligible Donors and Absolute Disqualifications: Permits companies to contribute directly or indirectly to any political party registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while strictly prohibiting Government companies and companies that have been in existence for less than three financial years.
  • Mandatory Physical Board Meeting Approval: Political contributions can only be authorized pursuant to a resolution passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors; passing such resolutions by circulation under Section 175 is illegal and void.
  • Judicial Restoration of Caps and Transparency: The Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Association for Democratic Reforms (2024) struck down the Finance Act 2017 amendments to Section 182 that had deleted the 7.5% net profit cap and omitted donee disclosure, restoring statutory limits and mandatory public disclosure of recipient party details.
  • Penal Sanctions for Illicit Political Funding: Contravention of Section 182 subjects the company to a fine extending up to five times the amount contributed, and every officer in default to imprisonment for a term up to six months and identical monetary fines.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 150: A five-judge Constitution Bench held the Electoral Bonds Scheme and the amendments to Section 182 unconstitutional, ruling that unlimited and anonymous corporate contributions undermine democratic governance, promote quid pro quo arrangements, and violate the citizens' fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
  • Jayantilal Ranchhoddas Koticha v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., AIR 1958 Bom 214: Chief Justice M.C. Chagla ruled that corporate political donations carry grave dangers of corrupting democratic processes, establishing that courts must exercise the strictest vigilance over corporate contributions to political entities.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Following the ADR judgment, ensure that all corporate political contributions are capped within historical profit limits and disclosed with full particulars—including recipient political party, mode of payment, and exact amount—in the profit and loss account. In forensic or regulatory investigations, verify that corporate funds were not routed through trade associations, non-profit trusts, or vendor kickbacks to bypass the statutory ban on political donations by newly incorporated companies.