‘BJP leads in digital ad spends in Bengal polls’

Soumyadip Mullick | MP | 28 April 2026, Kolkata:  “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” In West Bengal’s election season, that old adage is finding renewed relevance as a Millennium Post analysis of social media advertising highlights a significant disparity in digital campaign spending among major political parties over the past month.

Data from Meta’s Ad Library for the period between March 26 and April 26, 2026, shows that the BJP’s West Bengal unit has far outspent its rivals, investing ₹4.12 crore in digital campaign advertisements. The All India Trinamool Congress follows with ₹1.08 crore, while the CPI(M) trails significantly at ₹2.96 lakh.

The gap is not merely numerical; it reflects a widening asymmetry in how political messaging is amplified and consumed during a crucial election phase increasingly driven by digital platforms rather than traditional street-level campaigning.

The BJP has circulated 1,544 advertisements, creating a dominant digital footprint compared to 470 ads by the Trinamool Congress and just 61 by the CPI(M). In a political landscape increasingly shaped by screens and algorithms, such dominance raises a key question: does financial strength in digital outreach translate into electoral advantage?

However, the legal framework presents a notable distinction. Sections 77 and 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, mandate that individual candidates maintain and submit detailed accounts of election expenses within a fixed timeframe. Yet, there is no statutory ceiling on expenditure by political parties themselves, leaving a substantial portion of campaign spending largely unregulated.

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of February 15, 2024, which struck down the electoral bonds scheme, reinforced the importance of transparency in political funding. Then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, speaking for the Constitution Bench, held that the scheme violated voters’ fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

The court also highlighted the “close nexus between money and politics” and noted the “legitimate possibility” of financial contributions resulting in quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities and political parties.

“Information about funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting,” the court observed, emphasising that opacity in political finance strikes at the core of free and fair elections.