What The Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Electoral Bonds Means
The electoral bonds scheme is violative of the right to information and the right to freedom of speech and expression, the top court said.
Supreme Court unanimously struck down the electoral bonds scheme on Thursday, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
The electoral bonds scheme and relevant amendments to the Representation of the People Act and the Income Tax Act mandating non-disclosure of particulars on political contributions through electoral bonds is unconstitutional, the top court ruled.
The court decided that voters have the right to know who is funding political campaigns, and contributors can't keep their financial donations private, especially if there's a chance it involves some kind of exchange, according to senior advocates.
The electoral bonds scheme is violative of the right to information and the right to freedom of speech and expression provided under Article 19(1)(a), a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ruled.
Information about political inclination of voters can be used to influence them, Chandrachud said, reading the judgment. Financial support to political parties can lead to quid pro quo arrangement, the court said.
The amendment to section 182 of the Companies Act, which treats companies and individuals alike, for the purposes of political donations is manifestly arbitrary, as a company exercises a much wider influence on the political process than an individual, the court observed.
Contributions by companies are purely business transactions, the court held.
Here's what to Supreme Court lawyers had to stay:
'Review Petition Not Applicable'
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate And Petitioner
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said a review petition is not applicable in this situation, as the judgment remains unchanged. "We can inform the people of the country about how political parties acquire funds," he said.
'Voters Have The Right To Know'
Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate At Supreme Court
The court decided that voters have the right to know who is funding political campaigns, and contributors can't keep their financial donations private, especially if there's a chance it involves some kind of exchange, Hegde said.
Now, all details about electoral bonds issued since the petition was filed must be shared with the Election Commission. This decision is a big deal because it means that large amounts of money can't secretly influence elections, he said.
The court also mentioned that there are other ways to fund campaigns, suggesting that it doesn't have to be through methods that lack transparency, Hegde said.
'Significant Judgment For Free-And-Fair Elections'
Biswajit Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate At Supreme Court And Former ASG
What the Supreme Court has done is right; it declared the entire scheme unconstitutional, Senior Advocate Biswajit Bhattacharya said. However, the decision came a bit too late. The court should not have allowed this matter to linger for six years into the future, according to him.
Nevertheless, this judgment is seen as a significant one in promoting free and fair elections, marking a landmark decision in the legal landscape, he said.
