Blog

Electoral Bond scheme

The Supreme Court has found India’s Electoral Bond Scheme illegal, marking a watershed moment. This ruling, heralded as a landmark step toward electoral transparency and accountability, has far-reaching consequences for the country’s political financing system. a five-judge constitution bench ruled that electoral bonds violate citizens’ right to access information held by the government. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the Right to Information (RTI) law is “not confined to state affairs but also includes information necessary for participatory democracy”. “Political parties are relevant units in the electoral process and information about funding of political parties is essential for electoral choices,” he added. The court directed the government-run State Bank of India (SBI) not to issue any more such bonds, to provide identity details of those who bought them, and to give information about bonds redeemed by each political party to the Election Commission within a week. It also observed that electoral bonds were not the only scheme to curb the use of cash or “black money” and asked the government to explore other alternatives. “Citizens have a duty to hold the government accountable for their actions and inactions, and this can only happen if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy,” the court said.

Electoral Bond:

The electoral bonds system enabled corporations and individuals to make anonymous donations to political parties by acquiring electoral bonds from the State Bank of India (SBI). The SBI had sole access to the information of persons who had purchased electoral bonds. Encashed bond proceeds were to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The system was created in 2017 by the then Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitly to address the issue of secrecy in political party fundraising and to bring in transparency in political parties funding.

Voters right of information

The scheme was deemed to infringe the basic right to information under Article 19(1). Citizens have the right to know about candidates, and they should be able to learn about political party that comes into power and the finance supporting them as well. Anonymous donations through electoral bonds impede openness and accountability. Any corporation or company could be flooding in crores of amount to a political party and yet so far, the party had no obligation to disclose information about any funding received and their sources.

Restriction to RTI

The right to information u/s 19 can be restricted through art 19(2) which provides limitation to freedom of speech and expression. One of the fundamental purposes of imposing such restriction was to curd the flow of black money i.e. The funds earned through illegal activity. Even if the goal of combating black money is justified, even if the goal of combating black money is justified, it is insufficient in light of the constraints imposed by this plan. Additionally, it stated that this system is not the only way to combat dark money in electoral finance. Other solutions are less limited and also serve this purpose. To be regarded lawful, the government scheme must fundamentally meet three criteria. This was based on the proportionality test established by the court in its 2017 decision in the KS Puttaswamy case, which concerned the right to privacy.  For instance, there must be a law. The electoral bond key was created by the Finance Act, which included a number of revisions to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act.

Removed restrictions

The original Section 29C required political parties to publicly disclose contributions in excess of ₹20,000, received even through cheques and the electronic clearing system. The amendment, however, allowed a complete exemption for political parties to publish contributions received through electoral bonds. The amended Section 13A freed parties from the obligation of keeping a detailed record of contributions received through electoral bonds. Before the amendment, Section 182 had mandated that companies could donate only up to 7.5% of three years of their net aggregate income. The amendment lifted this cap and made room for unlimited and anonymous corporate donations to political parties.[1]

Doner Protection

The court addressed whether the right to donor privacy encompasses information regarding a citizen’s political affiliation. If so, would the financial gift to a political party considered political information In the Puttaswamy decision, the court stated that the right to informational privacy includes political affiliation. Political expression begins with the formation of political convictions, and it cannot be freely articulated without the secrecy of political allegiance. The state can utilize information to repress dissent and discriminate against individuals by denying them jobs. The lack of privacy regarding political affiliation would disproportionately affect people whose political opinions differ from those of the mainstream. Not granting privacy in this case might be devastating, since it could be used to deprive parties by voter. The court noted that the funding given to parties would essential be due to a reason being their support to the political party and further reiterated that the purpose behind their funding.

Way forward

With the Electoral Bond Scheme declared unlawful, there is an urgent need to review India’s political finance environment and develop robust measures to promote openness and accountability. To restore public trust in the democratic process, political parties must adopt stricter disclosure standards and engage in ethical fundraising activities. The government, in conjunction with all stakeholders, should investigate alternative arrangements for political fundraising that adhere to the ideals of transparency, justice, and accountability.

Conclusion

The Electoral Bond Scheme is a watershed point in India’s quest for electoral reform. Its implementation has prompted a heated discussion regarding the boundaries of political funding and the ideals that support democratic governance. As stakeholders debate the future of the program, the importance of transparency, accountability, and justice in political fundraising remains vital. Finally, the destiny of the Electoral Bond Scheme will affect the course of India’s democratic progress in the years ahead.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

[1] THE HINDU https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/electoral-bonds-scheme-unconstitutional-sbi-should-reveal-the-details-of-donors-rules-sc/article67848211.ece