A five-judge constitutional committee of the Supreme Court will begin hearing a series of oral arguments from October 31 challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme for political financing of parties.
The scheme, notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was proposed as an alternative to cash donations to political parties as part of efforts to achieve transparency in political financing.
As per the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds can be purchased by any citizen of India or any entity incorporated or established in India. An individual can purchase electoral bonds alone or together with other individuals.
The bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the batch of four pleas, including those of Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the CPI(M).
The other members of the bench are Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
On October 16, the Supreme Court said: “Having regard to the importance of the issue raised, and in relation to Article 145(4) (relating to rules for regulating the proceedings of SC) of the Constitution of India, the case shall be submitted to a bench of at least five judges…”
On October 10, the Supreme Court had taken note of the submissions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), that the matter should be settled before the opening of the electoral bond scheme for the 2024 general elections.
Anonymous financing through electoral bonds encourages corruption and violates the right of citizens to have a corruption-free nation, Bhushan had said.
“This promotes corruption because the source of funding is anonymous. It is violative of Article 21 and the ‘non-decision’ in the case aggravates the problem,” he had argued.
One of the PIL petitioners had claimed in March that Rs 12,000 crore has been paid to political parties through electoral bonds so far and two-thirds of the amount has gone to one major political party.
The Supreme Court said on March 21 that it will consider whether the pleas can be referred to a constitution bench for an “authoritative ruling”.
ADR, which filed the first PIL in 2017 on the issue of alleged corruption and undermining of democracy through illegal and foreign funding of political parties and lack of transparency in the bank accounts of all political parties, had filed an interim petition demanding that the sale of electoral bonds will not be reopened.
On January 20, 2020, the apex court had refused to grant an interim stay on the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme and sought responses from the Center and the Election Commission on an interim request by the NGO seeking stay of the scheme.
Only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and which have secured not less than one percent of the votes in the last general election to Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly are eligible for electoral bonds.
According to the notification, electoral bonds can only be redeemed by an eligible political party through an account with an authorized bank.
The Supreme Court had also refused to stay the Electoral Bond Scheme in April 2019 and made it clear that it will hold an in-depth hearing on the pleas as the Center and EC have raised ‘heavy issues’ that have ‘huge impact on sanctity’ . of the electoral process in the country”.
The Center and the EC had earlier taken opposing stands in the court on political financing, with the government wanting to maintain the anonymity of the donors and the poll panel wanting to reveal their names for the sake of transparency.
(Only the headline and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)