Electoral Bonds case verdict today: What parties argued before Supreme Court

Electoral Bonds case verdict today: What parties argued before Supreme Court

Context- On Thursday, February 15, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether the central government’s electoral bonds scheme should be invalidated.

The scheme

• The electoral bonds scheme, which allows anonymous donations to political parties through the purchase of bonds from the State Bank of India (SBI), is under scrutiny. The SBI is the only entity with access to the purchaser’s details.
• Unused bonds are directed to the Prime Minister Relief Fund after 15 days. The scheme, introduced in January 2018, faced opposition from several parties, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Common Cause, and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
• The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India, heard the case over three days from October 31 to November 2 of the previous year.

Here are some key arguments made before the apex court.

The petitioners’ concerns

• Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Common Cause and ADR, argued that the electoral bonds scheme hinders citizens’ right to information about political donations.
• He pointed out the impracticality of tracking donations through company financial statements due to the large number of registered companies in India.
• Bhushan also suggested that the scheme could favor the ruling government by allowing anonymous donations that could be reciprocated with governmental concessions.
• Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted that the scheme does not require donations to be connected to the election process and allows bond amounts to be redeemed for any purpose at any time.
• He also expressed concern that the scheme could lead to companies neglecting their duties towards shareholders by donating to political parties without shareholder oversight.

The central government’s justification

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the electoral bonds scheme, emphasizing its aim to ensure “confidentiality” rather than “anonymity”. He invoked the 2019 Supreme Court decision recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, arguing that donors have a right to privacy unless the information is of public interest.
• Mehta provided a detailed account of efforts to curb black money in politics, stating that the electoral bonds scheme was introduced after experimenting with various other schemes, amendments, and policies. He argued that any gaps in the scheme would not be sufficient grounds for its invalidation.
• Mehta also dismissed concerns of bias towards the ruling party, attributing any perceived bias to the ruling party’s public confidence rather than the scheme itself.

The Electoral Bond Scheme in India has the following features:

1. Issuer: The State Bank of India (SBI) issues the bonds.
2. Denominations: The bonds are available in denominations of Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, and Rs 1 crore.
3. Purchase: The bonds can be purchased by Indian citizens or entities established in India. They can be bought individually or jointly with other individuals.
4. Payment Method: The bonds can be purchased through a KYC-compliant account.
5. Anonymity: The name and other information of the donor are not entered on the instrument, making the electoral bonds anonymous.
6. Usage: The bonds are used to donate funds to political parties.
7. Validity: The bonds have a life of only 15 days, during which they can be used to make donations to political parties.
8. Encashment: The political parties have to encash the bonds within the stipulated time.
9. Availability: The bonds are available for a period of 10 days in a gap of four months (January, April, July, and October). They are also open for 30 days in Lok Sabha election years.
10. Purpose: The scheme was introduced to bring transparency to political funding in India.

Conclusion- The Electoral Bond Scheme in India is a significant initiative aimed at enhancing transparency in political funding. It offers a structured and confidential way for individuals and corporations to financially support political parties. However, the scheme has been met with criticism and legal scrutiny due to concerns about anonymity and potential bias towards the ruling party.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on these issues, the future of the Electoral Bond Scheme hangs in the balance. Regardless of the outcome, the debate surrounding this scheme underscores the ongoing struggle to balance transparency, privacy, and fairness in the realm of political funding.