Supreme Court: To increase openness in political fundraising, the electoral bonds program was introduced in 2018 as an alternative to financial contributions to political parties. Today, the Supreme Court invalidated the electoral bonds scheme introduced in 2018 as an alternative to cash donations to political parties, aiming to enhance transparency in political funding.
Below are the significant comments made by the Supreme Court regarding electoral bonds:
- The Supreme Court has declared the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, citing that it infringes upon citizens’ right to information.
- The issuing bank is directed to immediately halt the issuance of electoral bonds. Additionally, the State Bank of India is instructed to provide details regarding donations made through electoral bonds and disclose the political parties that received these contributions.
- Financial contributions to political parties serve two primary purposes: they can be made in support of a political party, or they may be given with the expectation of receiving something in return, commonly known as quid pro quo.
- Not all political contributions are intended to influence public policy. Students, daily wage earners, and others also make contributions. It is not necessarily impermissible to withhold the umbrella of privacy from political contributions simply because some are made for different purposes.
- Companies exert a significantly greater influence on the political process compared to individual contributions. Contributions from companies are primarily viewed as business transactions. Treating companies and individuals alike under the amendment to Section 182 of the Companies Act is deemed manifestly arbitrary.
- The Supreme Court also invalidated amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which had previously allowed for anonymous donations.
- The electoral bonds scheme isn’t the exclusive method to tackle black money. Various alternative measures exist for this purpose.
Ratnavali