Why did Supreme Court strike down electoral bond scheme?
The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the electoral bonds scheme in India marks a significant development in the realm of political funding and transparency. The scheme, which was introduced by the Central government in 2018, allowed for anonymous donations to political parties. However, the Supreme Court's ruling has deemed the scheme unconstitutional, citing violations of fundamental rights and concerns regarding transparency in political funding. Here's a detailed look at why the electoral bonds scheme was cancelled by the Supreme Court, presented in a point-wise format:
1. Violation of Right to Information (RTI) and Freedom of Speech: The Supreme Court held that the electoral bonds scheme violates the right to information and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The scheme's anonymity aspect was seen as a barrier to transparency, as it prevented citizens from knowing the sources of political funding.
2. Two Opinions, Same Conclusion: The bench, consisting of five judges, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered two separate but unanimous verdicts. Both opinions arrived at the same conclusion, emphasizing the scheme's infringement on fundamental rights.
3. Infringement on Freedom of Speech and Expression: CJI Chandrachud stated that the electoral bonds scheme is violative of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The lack of transparency in political funding was seen as detrimental to the democratic process.
4. Violation of Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court also noted that the scheme infringed on the right to privacy, including citizens' right to political privacy and affiliation. The anonymity of donors prevented the public from knowing who was funding political parties.
5. Invalidation of Amendments: The bench invalidated amendments made in various laws, including the Representation of Peoples Act and the Income Tax laws, which were introduced to accommodate the electoral bonds scheme. This further underscored the unconstitutionality of the scheme.
6. Disclosure of Contributors: The Supreme Court ordered the State Bank of India (SBI), which was the designated bank for issuing electoral bonds, to disclose the names of contributors to the scheme to the Election Commission. This was seen as a step towards greater transparency in political funding.
7. Stoppage of Issuance: The bench directed that the issuing bank should stop the issuance of electoral bonds. This effectively halted the scheme, preventing further anonymous donations to political parties.
8. Disclosure of Corporate Contributors: The court ruled that information about corporate contributors through electoral bonds must be disclosed, as these donations are often made for quid pro quo purposes. This was seen as a move towards curbing corruption in political funding.
9. Unlimited Political Contributions by Companies: The Supreme Court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies were arbitrary and unconstitutional. This decision aimed to prevent the misuse of corporate funds for political purposes.
10. Alternative to Cash Donations: The electoral bonds scheme was introduced as an alternative to cash donations to political parties, with the aim of bringing transparency to political funding. However, the lack of transparency and the anonymity of donors were major factors in its cancellation by the Supreme Court.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the electoral bonds scheme was a significant step towards ensuring transparency and accountability in political funding. The ruling highlighted the importance of upholding fundamental rights and maintaining the integrity of the democratic process.
