Electoral Bonds Scheme Review Dismissed
Category: Legal News
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
BACKGROUND
The Electoral Bonds Scheme was introduced by the Indian government on January 2, 2018, with the aim to bring transparency to political funding by replacing cash donations with bonds that could be purchased and redeemed by political parties. However, the scheme faced legal challenges with critics arguing that it allowed ruling parties to pressure contributors and compromised the public’s right to information about political funding.
In its original judgment on February 15, 2024, a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that the scheme violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to information.
Further, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI), the authorised financial institution under the scheme, to submit the details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission. In compliance with the court's orders, SBI disclosed that a total of 22,217 electoral bonds had been purchased and 22,030 redeemed by political parties between April 1, 2019, and February 15, 2024.
The SBI submitted these details to the Election Commission of India, which was instructed to make the information accessible to the public.
KEY ASPECTS
Petitioners’ Arguments:
The review pleas, which has been filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, stated that the electoral bonds scheme fell within the domain of legislative and executive policy and since the petitioners did not show any specific legal harm or injury that directly affected them as individuals, Nedumpara further contended that the court should not treat the matter as if it were a private litigation. He emphasized that the issue of the electoral bonds scheme was a broader matter of public interest and not a private dispute.
Dismissal of Review Petitions:
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of pleas seeking review of its February 15 verdict, which had scrapped the Modi government's electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Supreme Court Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The court also stated that the petitions did not meet the criteria for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Similarly, the plea to have the review petitions heard in an open court was also rejected, as the bench argued that the matter did not warrant reconsideration.
Court’s stance:
The Supreme Court in its original ruling highlighted that the electoral bonds scheme undermined transparency as it allowed ruling parties to force individuals and entities to contribute anonymously.
The court rejected the government's assertion that protecting the identity of the donor was similar to a secret ballot as it is misleading and called it an erroneous comparison.
The bench also emphasized the importance of transparency in political funding, pointing out that the scheme violated fundamental rights as it limits the public's ability to know who was donating money to political parties.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Supreme Court in rejecting the review petitions only reaffirms its stance to make political funding more transparent and accountable. The court points out the unconstitutionality of the electoral bonds and that it violates the public’s right to information regarding funding of political parties. On this aspect, the given ruling is rather important in determining future legislation on funding of electoral process. Hence, this case is fundamentally significant in the on-going electoral reform in India and how these anonymous donations affect democracy.
