The Supreme Court said that the scheme is “not the only way” to curb black money.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment today, declared the electoral bonds scheme for political funding as unconstitutional. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while announcing the verdict, said that the scheme was arbitrary and violated the citizens’ right to information.
The electoral bonds scheme, introduced by the government on January 2, 2018, was seen as a solution to replace cash donations and enhance transparency in political funding.
Here are the Supreme Court’s key conclusions:
1. Violation Of Article 19(1)(a)
The Supreme Court arrived at a unanimous decision, with both Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna agreeing on the “unconstitutional” nature of the electoral bonds scheme.
The key issues raised in the petitions focused around the potential violation of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the concern over unlimited corporate funding compromising the principles of free and fair elections.
2. Quid Pro Quo Scenarios
The Supreme Court held that the electoral bonds scheme is “not the only way” to curb black money. The court acknowledged the potential for quid pro quo arrangements arising from financial support to political parties.
The verdict highlighted that the anonymity of electoral bonds directly infringes upon the citizens’ right to information.
3. Diverse Purposes
The Supreme Court said that any infringement on the right to information should not be justified solely by the objective of curbing black money.
The Court said that not all contributions are intended to alter public policy, as individuals like students and daily wagers also contribute. The judgment said that denying the umbrella of privacy to political contributions solely due to certain contributions’ alternative purposes is impermissible.
