Supreme Court Quashes Electoral Bonds Scheme, Calls it Unconstitutional; Orders SBI to Disclose Details of Bonds Received By Parties
Image Source: Mint
In a long-awaited judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the electoral bonds scheme, holding them violative of Article 19(1)(a), and ordered SBI to submit the details of who received and purchased them since 2019 and to stop issuing them with immediate effect.
The scheme was first challenged by Congress leader Jaya Thakur & CPIM, claiming the secretive clauses of the scheme undermine transparency and violate voters’ right to information, allowing unregulated anonymous political donations, possibly opening the gates for shell companies’ contributions. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, said it endorses corruption due to their anonymity and does not allow “a level-playing field between ruling political parties and parties in the opposition and ever since this scheme was introduced contributions through this method had exceeded all other modes”.
Representing CPM, Adv. Shadan Farsat said that the left party has not accepted any money through the scheme and questioned the scheme on its test of arbitrariness in Article 14, saying it transforms non-anonymous money into anonymous. It’s important to note that the clauses which compelled organizations to show the amount and party to which they donated were removed, according to petitioners.
Whereas Solicitor General representing the government said disclosing donors’ identity could disincentivize the whole process and upon the court’s question of how to reconcile the right to information of voters & confidentiality, he said “voters don’t vote on the basis of who is funding the party but on principles, ideology, and efficiency”.
However, the Chief Justice condemned the scheme, saying contributions translate into influence over policymaking and speculated that they may lead to a quid pro quo arrangement because of the nexus between money and politics. The bench further held that the pretext of curbing black money (as the center claims it comes from only official banking channels) is not a sufficient justification to not disclose identities of the donors and details.
Timeline of The Case
The scheme was first introduced by the Modi government in 2018, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties. If we look at the judicial timeline on the issue of electoral bonds, the case was first filed by the Association for democratic reforms (ADR), including the petitions of the parties mentioned above. It was not until March of 2023 that the arguments and contentions started taking place, followed by a separate constitution bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud which was formed in October and the verdict for the judgment was reserved in November.
According to PTI, in 2022-23 BJP received around 2,120 crores in all political contributions, out of which 61% came from electoral bonds according to their annual audited report to the Election Commission. This was reported 7 times the amount received by Congress whose funding has been steadily declining since 2021.
It’s noteworthy that back in 2017, The Quint had unveiled something huge when they sent the bonds they purchased from SBI to a forensic lab and claimed that electoral bonds had hidden alphanumeric numbers inscribed on them to track the connection between donors and parties, insinuating that the government could see our political preferences. SBI officials denied such allegations and called the numbers a security feature added at the request of SBI. If they are only a security feature then why aren’t watermarks enough, The Quint asked.
Team Profile
- News Writer
- Rahul Tiwari, a law student, possesses a keen interest in politics, movies, music, and the pop culture landscape. Equipped with an unyielding spirit for writing, he navigates through his diverse interests with enthusiasm and dedication.
Latest entries
English10 March 2024Rahul Gandhi to Contest from His Former Seat of Wayanand in the Lok Sabha Elections, Shashi Tharoor to Contest from His Citadel; Everything You Need to Know About Their List
English8 March 2024Being Critical of Kashmir’s Abrogation is not an Offence; SC Quashes Case Against a Kashmiri Professor for Condemning the Scraping of Article 370
English7 March 2024SBI Misses Deadline for Electoral Bonds Disclosure; Opposition Calls It Dubious
English7 March 2024GN Saibaba, Former DU Professor & Scholar, Granted Acquittal from Bombay HC in an Alleged Maoist Case
