NEW DELHI: Questions over the role of foreign-funded organisations, advocacy groups, lawyers and digital media platforms in India’s electoral discourse have intensified following a series of public-interest litigations involving the Election Commission of India (ECI). At the centre of the debate is the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an organisation that has repeatedly approached the courts on issues concerning electoral transparency, voter rolls and political funding.
Explosive Thread: Must-Read. Must Share
1. How Foreign-funded NGOs and people are interfering with our election process.
Shocking details of sold-out people and NGOs.
ADR, with their lawyer Prashant Bhushan, filed many PILs in the SC against the Election Commission. pic.twitter.com/bTFFYnmNCd
— Office Of Vijay Patel (@VijayGajeraO) September 24, 2026
Publicly available records establish that ADR has received financial support from foreign-linked philanthropic organisations, including the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Network, while US tax records also show a grant to ADR from the Thakur Family Foundation. These funding relationships are documented. However, whether such funding translated into an organised attempt to influence India’s elections or interfere with the functioning of constitutional institutions is a separate claim that requires independent evidence.
ADR’s foreign funding trail
ADR’s own website lists the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Network India Advisors among organisations that have supported its activities. Its 2017-18 annual report also acknowledges support from Omidyar Network India Advisors, the Ford Foundation, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiatives.
US tax records compiled from Form 990 filings of the Thakur Family Foundation provide another documented link. The foundation’s grant database records a $30,000 grant to the Association for Democratic Reforms in 2020. The same database records grants to several individuals and organisations associated with journalism, civil liberties and public-policy research.
ADR has consequently become part of a broader debate over the role of foreign philanthropic funding in Indian civil society. The existence of foreign funding, however, does not by itself establish that a recipient organisation is acting on behalf of a foreign government or donor.
ADR and its repeated litigation involving the Election Commission
ADR has been involved in several cases before the Supreme Court concerning electoral transparency and the functioning of election-related institutions.
In a 2025 proceeding involving ADR and the ECI, Supreme Court records list advocate Prashant Bhushan as ADR’s advocate-on-record. In another proceeding, the Supreme Court’s cause list similarly identifies Prashant Bhushan in an ADR matter.
One of the most significant recent cases was Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India, concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. ADR challenged the ECI’s June 24, 2025 directive concerning the revision exercise. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the SIR in its May 27, 2026 judgment.
The litigation demonstrates that ADR has played an active role in challenging election-related decisions before the country’s highest court. It does not, by itself, establish that the organisation was attempting to “control” the electoral process.
A wider funding ecosystem
The significance of the Thakur Family Foundation becomes clearer when its publicly available grant records are examined. The foundation has funded a wide range of Indian journalists, researchers, academic institutions and civil-society organisations. Its records show grants to Nitin Sethi, the Centre for Equity Studies, Kumar Sambhav Shrivastava, Scroll Media Inc., Saurav Das, Priyanka Pulla and others.
For example, the foundation’s records show:
* Nitin Sethi: about $35,000 across two grants in 2020-21.
* Centre for Equity Studies: about $31,000 across 2020-21.
* Kumar Sambhav Shrivastava: about $34,000 across 2020-21.
* Association for Democratic Reforms: $30,000 in 2020.
* Scroll Media Inc.: about $53,000 across several years.
* Saurav Das: $8,070 in 2024.
The foundation itself describes its work as supporting public-health and civil-liberties initiatives. Its website records grants to organisations and individuals working on issues ranging from drug regulation and healthcare to RTI and civil liberties. It specifically records an award to the Centre for Equity Studies for research on implementation of the RTI Act and describes work associated with Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri.
The funding history of Scroll provides another example of the role played by international philanthropic capital in Indian digital media.
Scroll.in is operated by the US-based Scroll Media Inc. In 2014, Scroll Media raised funding from Omidyar Network, with participation from the Media Development Investment Fund. The amount was not publicly disclosed at the time. Separately, Thakur Family Foundation records show grants to Scroll Media Inc. over multiple years, including grants in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The existence of these grants establishes financial relationships between foreign philanthropic entities and the media organisation. It does not, without further evidence, establish that the donors dictated editorial positions or directed particular political campaigns.
The Reporters’ Collective and Nitin Sethi
Nitin Sethi is another important name in the network described in the allegations. Thakur Family Foundation records show that Sethi received grants totalling roughly $35,000 across 2020 and 2021.
Sethi is also associated with The Reporters’ Collective. The organisation describes itself as a deep-dive investigative journalism collaborative and lists Kumar Sambhav among its alumni. It says its institutional grants have included support from the Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation (IPSMF). The Reporters’ Collective itself states that since 2019 its investigative journalism has been funded by Indian citizens and describes its present funding model separately from its earlier institutional support. Thus, while individual funding relationships can be documented, claims of a single centrally controlled media network require more evidence than overlapping professional or funding connections.
NCPRI and the RTI movement
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) provides another historical connection among several names mentioned in the thread. A 2004 NCPRI document was signed by a group that included Arvind Kejriwal, Harsh Mander, Jean Dreze, Prashant Bhushan and Shekhar Singh, among others. Historical records of the organisation also show that several of these individuals were associated with its working committee.
The NCPRI played an important role in India’s movement for the Right to Information and was part of the wider civil-society campaign that contributed to the eventual RTI Act, 2005. The existence of these links is therefore historical and documented.
Centre for Equity Studies and Thakur Foundation
The Centre for Equity Studies (CES), associated with figures including Harsh Mander, Jean Dreze and Shekhar Singh, also appears in the Thakur Family Foundation’s grant records.
The foundation’s records show approximately $31,000 in grants to CES during 2020-21. The foundation itself says it awarded CES funding for research related to implementation of the RTI Act and also provided emergency assistance to the organisation during the COVID-19 period. This establishes a financial relationship between the foundation and CES. It does not establish that CES subsequently acted under instructions from the foundation in electoral or political matters.
DIGIPUB and the digital-media network
Another organisation cited in the allegations is DIGIPUB News India Foundation. DIGIPUB describes itself as an association of digital news publishers. Its current website lists Dhanya Rajendran as chairperson and Ritu Kapur and Abhinandan Sekhri as general secretaries. Its internal committee includes former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur, Swarna Rajagopalan and activist Bezwada Wilson.
The organisation was formed in 2020 by digital-media organisations seeking to represent the interests of digital news publishers. Its stated objective is industry representation and self-regulation rather than political campaigning. Bezwada Wilson’s presence on the DIGIPUB internal committee is documented. His association with the Centre for Equity Studies and other civil-society initiatives is also part of the broader network of professional relationships cited in the allegations. Again, an organisational connection does not automatically demonstrate operational coordination on electoral matters.
Thakur Foundation’s support for journalists and civil-liberties work
The funding records reveal that the Thakur Family Foundation has supported a sizeable group of Indian journalists and researchers. Among the recipients are Scroll Media, Nitin Sethi, Kumar Sambhav, Saurav Das, Priyanka Pulla, Centre for Equity Studies and ADR. The foundation’s own impact page provides descriptions of several projects it funded, including reporting on India’s healthcare system, drug regulation, COVID-19 and RTI-related research. This creates a discernible philanthropic ecosystem spanning journalism, civil liberties, public health and public-policy research. The more consequential question is whether these financial links were accompanied by coordinated political objectives. The available grant records alone cannot establish that.
Saurav Das and the recent controversy
Saurav Das has also emerged in the current debate. Public grant records show that he received $8,070 from the Thakur Family Foundation in 2024, classified in the grant database under civil liberties. The same foundation has funded Scroll Media and a number of other journalists and civil-society actors.
These financial links have been cited by critics seeking to establish a broader network connecting foreign-funded organisations, journalists and activism. Reports about the recent controversy have also acknowledged the funding relationship while noting that the existence of the grant does not itself establish that the recipient acted at the donor’s direction.
What the evidence establishes
The available public records establish several important facts. First, ADR has received support from foreign-linked philanthropic organisations, including the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Network, and records also show a Thakur Family Foundation grant. Second, ADR has repeatedly litigated election-related matters before the Supreme Court, including cases involving the ECI, with Prashant Bhushan appearing for the organisation in several proceedings. Third, the Thakur Family Foundation has funded a range of journalists, researchers and civil-society organisations that occupy overlapping professional networks. Fourth, Scroll Media has received funding from Omidyar Network as well as grants from the Thakur Family Foundation. Fifth, there are documented historical links among several figures through organisations such as NCPRI, DIGIPUB and CES.
What is not established merely by these facts is that the organisations form a single command structure, that foreign donors instructed them to file particular PILs, or that they were deliberately attempting to manipulate or “control” India’s elections.
Such conclusions would require evidence such as donor instructions, coordinated communications, financial transfers tied specifically to electoral litigation, organisational directives, or other documentary evidence demonstrating operational coordination.
The larger issue: Transparency in foreign-funded civil society
The controversy nevertheless raises a legitimate public-interest question: how transparent should foreign-funded NGOs, advocacy groups, media organisations and research institutions be about their funding when they participate in matters with significant political or institutional consequences?
Foreign philanthropic funding is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing. At the same time, transparency about funding sources is important when organisations conduct advocacy, publish research, influence public debate or participate in litigation concerning constitutional institutions.
The Supreme Court remains the constitutional forum in which such petitions are tested, while the ECI remains the statutory and constitutional authority responsible for conducting elections. The fact that an NGO approaches the Court does not give that NGO control over the electoral process; the final decision remains with the judiciary. In the ADR-Bihar SIR case, for instance, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Election Commission’s exercise after considering the legal challenge.
The emerging funding trail therefore warrants scrutiny primarily through documents, financial disclosures, court records and demonstrable institutional links, rather than assumptions based solely on ideological similarity or professional association.
The central question is not simply who funds whom, but whether funding relationships translate into undisclosed influence over litigation, journalism, advocacy or electoral processes. Establishing that would require evidence beyond the funding relationships themselves.
