Author: Akhil Gupta ,a student of Osmania University College Of Law Hyderabad
Association for democratic reforms vs
Union of India (supreme court of India 2024)
Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud,B.R. Gavai, Justices Sanjiv Khanna ,Manoj Misra and J.B. Pardiwala
Date: February 15, 2024
Introduction
Electoral bonds were introduced in India by financial bill 2017, during union budget 2017 by finance minister “Arun Jaitley”. It was introduced as mode of funding to political parties in India
Electoral Bonds were a mode of funding for the political parties in India from their introduction in 2018 January, until they were struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on 15 February 2024.
Background
In 2018, the Union Government rolled out the Electoral Bonds Scheme, aiming to make it easier for people and businesses to support political parties without revealing their identities. This initiative allows individuals and corporations to buy bonds from designated banks and then donate them to their chosen political parties. The beauty of this scheme lies in its anonymity, giving donors the freedom to contribute without the pressure of public scrutiny.
Key issues
1.Right to Information: Whether the anonymity of donors under the scheme violated the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
2.Judicial Review: Whether the Court had the authority to adjudicate on the scheme, given its economic policy nature.
3.Free and Fair Elections: Whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties infringed on the principles of free and fair elections.
Judgment.
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, declaring it unconstitutional.
Key points:
Violation of Right to Information: The Court held that the scheme violated the voters’ right to know the source of political funding, which is essential for making an informed choice during elections.
Impact on Free and Fair Elections: The scheme was found to facilitate non-transparent political funding and electoral corruption, undermining the integrity of elections.
Judicial Review: The Court asserted its authority to review the scheme, stating that the anonymity and unlimited corporate funding aspects were directly related to the electoral process, not merely economic policy.
Opinions
Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Chandrachud, writing for the majority, emphasized the importance of transparency in political funding for the health of democracy.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with the majority but provided additional insights on the implications of the scheme on voters’ rights and electoral integrity.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforced the principle that transparency in political funding is crucial for the democratic process and upheld the voters’ right to information as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
This case is a significant milestone in ensuring transparency and accountability in political funding in India.
FAQS
1.What was the main issue in the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India case?
The primary issue was whether the Electoral Bonds Scheme violated the voters’ right to information and the principles of free and fair elections by allowing anonymous donations to political parties.
2.Why did the Supreme Court declare the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court found that the scheme violated the voters’ right to know the source of political funding, which is essential for making informed electoral choices. It also facilitated non-transparent political funding and electoral corruption, undermining the integrity of elections.
3.How did the Court justify its authority to review the Electoral Bonds Scheme?
The Court asserted that the anonymity and unlimited corporate funding aspects of the scheme were directly related to the electoral process, not merely economic policy. Therefore, it fell within the Court’s purview to ensure the integrity of elections and uphold constitutional principles.
4.What impact does this judgment have on political funding in India?
The judgment reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in political funding. It ensures that voters have the right to know the sources of political donations, which is crucial for maintaining the health of democracy and the integrity of the electoral process.
