How Supreme Court Declared Electoral Bonds Unconstitutional
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has scrapped the controversial electoral bond scheme introduced by the Centre in 2018. The court declared the scheme "unconstitutional" as it allowed for anonymous contributions to political parties, which violated voters' right to information. The verdict, which comes ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, has been welcomed by opposition parties and civil society activists. Let's delve into the key implications of this landmark decision. Unmasking Anonymity: Supreme Court's Stand The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized the importance of transparency in political funding. It ordered the full disclosure of donors and recipients of electoral bonds issued since April 2019. The court highlighted that restricting black money or illegal election financing did not justify infringing upon voters' right to information. By striking down the scheme, the court aimed to identify corruption and quid pro quo transactions, promoting good governance. Response from Opposition and Civil Society The verdict was met with immediate appreciation from opposition parties and civil society activists. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had received the majority of electoral bonds since the scheme's inception, downplayed the decision, stating that it would not impact voters' sentiment. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge welcomed the ruling, describing the scheme as "opaque and undemocratic." The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners in the case, expressed its wholehearted support for the judgment, considering it a boost to Indian democracy. Government's Options and BJP's Perspective While the government is studying the judgment, it has three possible courses of action: accepting the verdict, pursuing an ordinance route, or seeking a review. The BJP, despite downplaying the impact, recognizes that the ruling affects all political parties. The court's decision reinforces the need for transparency in political funding and aims to reduce the influence of corporate contributions on the electoral process. Violation of the Right to Information and Black Money Concerns The Supreme Court found that the electoral bond scheme violated the voters' right to information, as it anonymized contributions. The court rejected the government's argument that the scheme was necessary to curb black money. It stated that alternative methods, such as electronic transfers and electoral trusts, could achieve the same purpose without compromising the right to information. The court also highlighted the close connection between money and politics, emphasizing the need for free and fair elections. Unveiling the Donors and Recipients: Court's Directives To ensure transparency, the court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose all donors and recipients of electoral bonds issued since April 2019 on its website by March 13. The State Bank of India, the designated issuing bank, was ordered to cease issuing electoral bonds immediately. The bank must also provide details of all bonds purchased between April 12, 2019, and the present to the ECI by March 6. If any bonds are yet to be encashed, the political parties must return them to the purchaser. Voters' Right to Know and Balancing Act Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in a separate but concurring judgment, underscored the importance of voters' right to know. The judgment highlighted that transparency in funding political parties is essential for free and fair elections. The electoral bond scheme failed to meet the balancing prong of the proportionality test. Justice Khanna drew attention to the possibility of money laundering and the contradictory nature of the scheme, which allowed political parties in power to have selective access to information. The Supreme Court's decision to scrap the electoral bond scheme is a significant step towards ensuring transparency in political funding. This judgment reaffirms the principle of free and fair elections and emphasizes the need to reduce the influence of money in politics. The onus is now on political parties and the Election Commission to implement the court's directives and strengthen India's democratic process.
.jpg)
