New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 15) delivered its judgment on petitions contesting the electoral bonds scheme, ruling it as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, delivered two separate but unanimous verdicts on the petitions challenging the scheme. Having reserved the verdict on November 2, 2023, the five-judge bench concluded the deliberations.
The scheme was introduced by the Narendra Modi government in 2018 and allowed anonymous donations to political parties. Under this system, individuals or entities could purchase electoral bonds from the State Bank of India and allocate them to a political party of their preference.
Also read: ‘Part of Secret Ballot’: How the Modi Govt Backed Electoral Bonds in the Supreme Court
According to the provisions of the scheme, only the political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and which secured not less than 1% of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha or a state legislative assembly are eligible to receive electoral bonds.
Electoral bonds worth more than Rs 570 crores have been sold in the latest phase of the electoral bond sale that lasted from January 2 to January 11, 2024, The Wire had reported, citing a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra.
Here are some of the key quotes by the apex court on electoral bonds:
“The electoral bonds scheme and the impugned provisions to the extent that they infringe upon the right to information of the voter by anonymising contribution through electoral bonds are violative of Article 19 (1)(a),” said the CJI, as per a report in LiveLaw.
“Economic inequality leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics. At a primary level, political contributions give a “seat at the table” to the contributor. That is, it enhances access to legislators. This access also translates into influence over policymaking. An economically affluent person has a higher ability to make financial contributions to political parties, and there is a legitimate possibility that financial contribution to a political party would lead to quid pro quo arrangements because of the close nexus between money and politics.”
“Information about political funding would enable a voter to assess if there is a correlation between policymaking and financial contributions.”
Also read: Electoral Bonds Are Illegal Now. But Who Benefitted for the 6+ Years They Lasted?
“The ability of a company to influence the electoral process through political contributions is much higher when compared to that of an individual. A company has a much graver influence on the political process, both in terms of the quantum of money contributed to political parties and the purpose of making such contributions. Contributions made by individuals have a degree of support or affiliation to a political association. However, contributions made by companies are purely business transactions, made with the intent of securing benefits in return.”
“The purpose of Section 182 is to curb corruption in electoral financing. For instance, the purpose of banning a government company from contributing is to prevent such companies from entering into the political fray by making contributions to political parties. The amendment to Section 182 by permitting unlimited corporate contributions (including by shell companies) authorizes unrestrained influence of companies on the electoral process. This is violative of the principle of free and fair elections and political equality captured in the value of “one person one vote”.”