The Electoral Bond Scheme, which allows citizens and entities in India to purchase bonds for funding political parties, is facing legal scrutiny as the Supreme Court questions the transparency of its funding. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and other justices is scheduled to hear four pleas challenging the scheme, including those filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Ahead of the hearing, the Attorney General (AG), R Venkataramani, filed a statement stating that citizens do not have the right to information regarding the source of the funds under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The AG argued that the electoral bonds scheme contributes to clean money and that there can be reasonable restrictions on the right to know anything and everything.
Meanwhile, Congress leader P Chidambaram alleged that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) intends to raise funds from big corporates in an opaque, secretive, and conspiratorial manner. In response, the BJP’s IT department head, Amit Malviya, defended the electoral bonds scheme, stating that it ensures transparency and allows small businesses and corporate donors to contribute without fear of backlash.
A written submission filed by intervenor Citizens’ Rights Trust claimed that the electoral bonds scheme allows political parties to receive donations behind a curtain of secrecy. The submission argued that the scheme is non-transparent and comparable to a cash contribution.
The Supreme Court announced that a five-judge bench would adjudicate the pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bonds scheme, ensuring an authoritative pronouncement. The NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had filed the first PIL in 2017, alleging corruption and lack of transparency in political party funding. ADR also sought to halt the sale of electoral bonds.
Only political parties registered under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and receiving at least 1% of the votes in the last election are eligible to receive electoral bonds. Bonds can only be encashed through an authorized bank.
The Supreme Court has previously declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme, recognizing the weighty issues it raises for the sanctity of the electoral process. The government has advocated for maintaining donor anonymity, while the Election Commission has advocated for transparency by revealing donor names.
As the legal scrutiny continues, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the electoral bonds scheme will have significant implications for political funding transparency in India.
