Jahanvi Agarwal
Renowned advocate Prashant Bhushan in the Electoral bonds case recently argued before the Supreme Court that the electoral bond scheme infringes upon citizens’ fundamental right to information about political parties.
He cited previous Supreme Court judgments, asserting that if citizens have the right to know about candidates, they unquestionably have the right to know about the financial backers of political parties.
A constitutional bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is currently hearing this case, presented through a PIL filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
He also added that the Electoral Bond scheme introduces a level of opacity that conceals the identities of contributors. This opaqueness means that only the government is privy to information about who has donated to whom. Political parties may also be in the dark about the identity of donors, as these bonds are essentially bearer bonds.
The parties are merely required to disclose that they received a total sum of Rs 500 crore through Electoral Bonds, while the actual linkage between bond purchasers and encashment can only be traced by the State Bank of India, which falls under the purview of the Union government.
Bhushan highlighted the removal of the 7.5 percent annual profit limit for corporate donations by the government. This change implies that even loss-making or inactive shell companies can contribute, thereby undermining citizens’ right to be informed about political party funding, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
It was contended that Electoral Bonds could facilitate corruption, as there is a perception that these bonds are offered as kickbacks to the ruling party. Bhushan pointed out that a substantial majority of the bonds are of denominations exceeding Rs 1 crore and that almost all of them are purchased by corporations.
The government has also eliminated the cap on corporate donations and amended the FCRA, which, according to Bhushan, disrupts the democratic balance by creating an uneven playing field between ruling and opposition parties.
Moreover, evidence was presented to suggest that corporations are using Electoral Bonds to provide kickbacks to the ruling parties, citing party-wise audit reports of these bonds. He also noted that the BJP has declared donations that far exceed the total donations of all other political parties combined.
The Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment in this case, which challenges the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond scheme. The Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, had argued that the scheme does not violate any existing rights or fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, emphasizing that laws that do not infringe upon fundamental rights cannot be invalidated.
Venkataramani further stated that past Supreme Court judgments do not support the notion that citizens have a right to information about political parties’ funding under Article 19(1)(a).
Case Name: Association for Democratics Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Diary Number: 880/2017
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud