Underscoring the need for reducing the cash component in the electoral process, the bench also said that the Electoral Bonds Scheme for funding political parties should not become a tool for "legitimisation of quid pro quo" between power centres and people who are benefactors of that power.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while reserving its verdict on pleas challenging the Electoral Bond Scheme, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to produce the up-to-date data of funds that have been received by political parties through electoral bonds till September 30, 2023 in a sealed cover before it.
After continuously hearing arguments for three days on pleas by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, the bench reserved its verdict on the pleas.
Apex Court directs ECI to produce up-to-date data in terms of its earlier April 2019 direction
A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, while observing during the hearing that the poll panel should have the up to date data, said, “In any event, we now direct that the Election Commission (of India) shall produce up to date data until September 30, 2023 in terms of the interim direction which was issued on April 12, 2019,” and added that this exercise is to be carried out within two weeks and data has to be handed over to the registrar (judicial) of the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
What Apex Court said in its April 2019 direction?
The top court had not stayed the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme introduced by the Centre in its April 2019 order but had said that it would hear the pleas challenging the scheme in depth as weighty issues have been raised by the Centre and the ECI having “tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country”.
Bench asked ECI about quantum of electoral bonds subscribed
The bench on Thursday asked the ECI counsel about the quantum of electoral bonds which have been subscribed and the ECI counsel said that he has some data available in terms of the April 2019 order of the top court in a sealed cover and he can place those data before the court. The bench told the ECI counsel to continue to collect the data, adding that the ECI never came back to the top court for clarification if there was any doubt regarding the earlier directive.
The bench, during the hearing into the matter, said it will not ask at this stage the State Bank of India to reveal the identity of the donors but would like to know about the quantum of bonds subscribed.
Underscoring the need for reducing the cash component in the electoral process, the bench also said that the Electoral Bonds Scheme for funding political parties should not become a tool for “legitimisation of quid pro quo” between power centres and people who are benefactors of that power. The bench said that the legislature and the executive can devise a system which does not have the “flaws” of this scheme and is more transparent. “You can still devise a system which balances out in a proportional way, that is the point,” the bench told ASG Mehta.
What petitioners argued?
Earlier during the hearing, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), attacked the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme, saying that “Not even one per cent of donations made to political parties through electoral bonds scheme in the last five years has been made to any opposition political party not in power either in state or the Centre.”
Bhushan further submitted the five-judge Constitution Bench that the Electoral Bond Scheme is an opaque instrument that promotes corruption in country because there is good reason to believe that these bonds are kickbacks to parties in power and defeats the right of the people to be informed of the sources of funding of political parties and the fundamental right of a citizen to know.
Kapil Sibal, who represented one of the petitioners, argued that the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme is a scheme to prevent criminals from being prosecuted and there is nothing anonymous about it and this is just protecting the rich.
What Centre argued?
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, told the bench that electoral bonds were brought to combat the use of black or unclean money in politics and “Electoral Bond Scheme was brought in to ensure clean money coming into banking system and clean money coming into political party system and eradicate the menace of black money in elections. Moreover, this scheme is not a stand all measure taken by government to deal with black Money in elections”.