Vajpayee's ashes immersed in the Ganga at Har ki Pauri

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received ₹6,654.93 crore in donations during the 2024-25 financial year — a Lok Sabha election year — registering a 68 per cent increase over the previous fiscal.

In its annual contribution report submitted to the Election Commission on December 8, two days ahead of the deadline, the BJP disclosed all donations exceeding ₹20,000. The report, now available on the Commission’s website, covers contributions received between April 1, 2024 and March 30, 2025 — a period marked by the general election and Assembly polls in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Delhi.

The BJP, the world’s largest political party by membership, had reported donations of ₹3,967 crore in 2023-24. The latest figures represent the party’s highest donation receipts in the last five years.

Electoral trusts accounted for around 40 per cent of the BJP’s total donations. The Prudent Electoral Trust contributed ₹2,180 crore, followed by the Progressive Electoral Trust with ₹757 crore and the New Democratic Electoral Trust with ₹150 crore. Contributions from other electoral trusts together amounted to ₹3,112.5 crore. The remaining funds came from corporate donors and individuals. Electoral trusts are entities set up by companies to channel donations to political parties.

Among major corporate contributors, Serum Institute of India donated ₹100 crore, Rungta Sons Private Limited ₹95 crore, Vedanta ₹67 crore, and Macrotech Developers (formerly Lodha Developers) ₹65 crore. Three Bajaj Group companies together contributed ₹65 crore, while Derive Investments donated ₹50 crore.

Other notable donors included Malabar Gold (₹10 crore), Kalyan Jewellers (₹15.1 crore), Hero Group (₹23.65 crore), Dilip Buildcon Group (₹29 crore), ITC Limited (₹35 crore), Wave Industries (₹5.25 crore) and Zerodha’s investment firm, promoted by Nikhil Kamath, which contributed ₹1.5 crore.

Several BJP leaders also made individual donations. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma donated ₹3 lakh, Assam minister Pijush Hazarika ₹2.75 lakh, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan ₹1 lakh, Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi ₹5 lakh, Indore Mayor Pushyamitra Bhargava ₹1 lakh, and Akash Vijayvargiya, son of senior BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya, also donated ₹1 lakh, among others.

In contrast, most opposition parties reported a sharp decline in donations. The Congress received ₹522.13 crore in 2024-25, a fall of about 43 per cent from ₹1,129 crore in the previous year. The Trinamool Congress saw donations drop to ₹184.08 crore from ₹618.8 crore, while the Bharat Rashtra Samithi reported just ₹15.09 crore, down from ₹580 crore.

The Aam Aadmi Party, however, recorded an increase, collecting ₹39.2 crore compared to ₹22.1 crore last year. The Telugu Desam Party received ₹85.2 crore in donations, down from ₹274 crore, but also earned ₹102 crore through fees and subscriptions. The Biju Janata Dal reported ₹60 crore in donations, compared to ₹246 crore in the previous fiscal.

The 2024-25 financial year is also the first without electoral bonds, after the Supreme Court struck down the scheme as unconstitutional in February 2024. Since its introduction in 2018, the electoral bond scheme had enabled political parties to receive over ₹16,000 crore in anonymous donations, with the BJP receiving the largest share. 

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.