 "Supreme Court, SC, Top Court")
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) is set to deliver its verdict on a series of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme on February 15.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, comprises Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Khanna and Gavai are two of the senior-most judges of the SC.
The Apex court reserved its judgment on the matter in November 2023, following which it directed the Election Commission to provide comprehensive data on donations received by political parties through the electoral bonds scheme until September 30, 2023.
What is the electoral bond system?
Electoral bonds were introduced in 2017 as interest-free financial instruments allowing donations to political parties while ensuring donor anonymity. They were launched formally in 2018 to enhance transparency in electoral funding.
These bonds can be purchased in various denominations from authorised branches of the State Bank of India (SBI) and can be encashed by political parties within 15 days of receipt to finance electoral expenses. The scheme also specifies specific periods during which these bonds can be bought, with additional provisions during general election years.
Case background and arguments presented
Challenges to the constitutional validity of the scheme were raised by Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), leading to the matter being referred to a five-judge bench for deliberation on the critical issues involved.
Earlier parties were required to disclose details of anyone who donated more than Rs 20,000.
Activists called for transparency, as the scheme would not allow voters to know which individual or organisations were funding a political party, and to what extent.
The challenge to the scheme was mounted by various parties, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Congress leader Jaya Thakur, and Spandan Biswal. Their legal representation included senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vijay Hansaria, along with lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Attorney General Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the government.
Petitioners have also asked the court to declare political parties as "public office", which would bring them under the Right to Information Act. This would mean that political parties would have to disclose their income and expenditures.
During the proceedings, Prashant Bhushan contended that electoral bonds undermine democracy due to their lack of transparency, thereby creating an uneven playing field between ruling and opposition parties.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered this by highlighting the absence of donor disclosure before the introduction of electoral bonds, citing an ADR report indicating that 69 per cent of political donations came from 'unknown sources.' Mehta argued that the anonymity provided by electoral bonds was essential to safeguard donors' political affiliations.
