Author: Ridhima Lohat(BALLB HONS)
College: Noida International University
To the Point: Main Issues of the Case
The main idea of the Electoral Bonds Scheme is to enable political parties to get funds from banks. It aimed to remove black money from the electoral process; however, the opponents insisted that since donors remained anonymous, transparency was compromised.
According to the Supreme Court, the right of voters to know who donated to political parties was a fundamental one; thus, the Electoral Bonds Scheme was declared ‘unconstitutional’ in February 2024. One of the most anticipated verdicts on free, fair elections, democracy, and transparency was announced.
The Proof:
The Electoral Bonds Scheme was introduced through Finance Act 2017 amendment, which allowed purchasing tickets from the State Bank of India and donating them to political parties of choice anonymously.
Numerous petitions were filed, among which the following arguments were advanced:
1. The anonymity of donors made it impossible for citizens to know who gave money to political parties;
2. Corporate donations were considered inappropriate since the amounts donated could be limitless;
3. Close to shell companies, electoral bonds threatened to undermine the principle of transparency in political financing.
The Supreme Court laid out whether the Electoral Bonds Scheme was against the Articles 14 and 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
The verdict stated:
1. The public had a fundamental right to know who provided donations to political parties;
2. In a democracy, donations to political parties needed to be transparent;
3. Anonymous donations undermined election transparency.
Therefore, when it came to the question of the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not pass the test of proportionality and violated the Constitution. Thus, the Court ordered the State Bank of India to disclose the information on all electoral bonds and prohibit their further issue.
Abstract:
Political fundraising is at the center of democracy, whereas political donation secrecy poses a threat to transparency, resulting in reduced public trust in the political system. Electoral bonds allowed contributors to make their donations public; thus, those who donated to political parties using electoral bonds wanted their donations to be known. Nevertheless, the new Electoral Bonds Scheme significantly diminished donation transparency, jeopardizing free, fair elections and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court ruling stressed that only responsible political parties and informed voters could ensure healthy democracies; therefore, the Court ruling went against the electoral bonds scheme, highlighting the need for equality, transparency, and free, fair elections.
The ruling suggested that when it came to election financing, the right of voters to know outweighed the right of donors to remain anonymous.
Use of Legal Terms:
Electoral bond: A financial instrument issued by the State Bank of India and donated to political parties eligible to receive them.
Transparency: The principle, according to which political and governmental actions are taken in a manner that allows all forms of public scrutiny.
Right to Information: A fundamental right, which is explicitly mentioned in Article 19(1)(a). It is a right to obtain information necessary for the exercise of any of the other fundamental rights.
Manifest Arbitrariness: A justiciability principle, which is mentioned in Article 14. According to this principle, irrational laws and actions can be challenged in court.
Free and Fair Elections: The principle, which postulates that elections are conducted in a manner that ensures that all voters cast ballots of their choice.
Constitutional Validity: The principle, according to which laws and actions are compliant with the Constitution.
Case Laws:
1. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
The court ruled Electoral Bonds Scheme illegal; the court ordered disclosure of electoral bonds information, which demonstrated that voters had a fundamental right to know who donated to whom.
1. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India
This case established that the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) was not limited to election candidates; rather, voters also had a fundamental right to know who donated to whom in elections.
Conclusion:
The Electoral Bonds ruling is of paramount importance in India’s constitutional and electoral law jurisprudence, as the Electoral Bonds Scheme aimed to take away election transparency by shielding big, anonymous donations from public scrutiny. Although the Electoral Bonds Scheme was meant to end election black money, its disclosure rules lacked transparency, failing to consider the right of voters to know who donated to whom.
The Supreme Court ruling emphasized the need for electoral integrity, transparency, and free, fair elections in India. Going forward, India’s campaign finance laws need to be adjusted to protect election integrity while balancing the need for donor privacy.
FAQs:
Q1. What are Electoral Bonds?
They are financial instruments allowing anonymous donations to political parties.
Q2. Why were they declared illegal?
They interfered with election transparency because they violated the right of voters to know who donated to whom.
Q3. Which rights did they violate?
The rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) and the principles of free, fair elections and democracy.
Q4. Is transparency in political donations important?
Yes, since it ensures political accountability and limits corruption.
Q5. Why was this a historic ruling?
This was a historic ruling because it restated the need for free, fair elections, which presupposes that voters are informed about who donates to whom. The ruling protects and promotes constitutional values by ensuring election integrity, transparency, and political accountability, which upholds democracy.
