In a significant legal development, the central government defended the electoral bonds scheme in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on October 29. Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that citizens do not possess an inherent “right to know” the sources of electoral bonds, a statement echoing the government’s position on donor anonymity
The affidavit acknowledged the multifaceted support received by political parties, encompassing various forms of contributions, including financial aid. AG Venkataramani emphasized that the “right to know” shoul’ be balanced with reasonable restrictions and cannot be extended limitlessly, countering the demand for unrestricted transparency.
The Supreme Court’s attention Is now focused on this issue, with a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, slated to hear the case on October 31. The bench, which includes justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, will evaluate pleas challenging the electoral bond scheme’s validity, including submissions from Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the CPI(M).
Introduced in 2018, the electoral bonds scheme aimed to revolutionize political funding by offering an alternative to cash donations, enhancing transparency in the process. Under this scheme, Indian citizens and entities incorporated in India can purchase electoral bonds, either independently or jointly.
However, only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and those securing at least one percent of the votes in the last general election are eligible to receive these bonds. Moreover, eligible political parties can encash these bonds solely through authorized bank accounts.
Despite its intended transparency, concerns have arisen regarding the potential for anonymous funding, which critics argue could foster corruption. Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), emphasized the need for adjudication before implementing the electoral bond scheme in the 2024 general elections.
This debate has highlighted the contrasting perspectives of the government and the Election Commission (EC), with the former advocating for donor anonymity and the latter pressing for transparency by revealing donor names. The Supreme Court proceedings are anticipated to provide crucial insights into the future of political funding transparency in the country.