Citizens don’t have right to know source of political funds: AG to SC on electoral bond scheme

Citizens don’t have right to know source of political funds: AG to SC on electoral bond scheme

The Attorney General, R Venkataramani, has emphasized that the electoral bond scheme for political funding ensures the confidentiality of the contributor and promotes the use of clean money in political contributions. He has asserted that there is no inherent right for citizens to access information about the source of funds under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Venkataramani’s stance is that there cannot be an unrestricted right to access “anything and everything” without reasonable limitations.

Furthermore, the AG highlighted that the power of judicial review is not intended to suggest alternative policies but rather to examine state actions that infringe upon existing rights. He emphasized that a constitutional court’s role is not to pronounce on matters where no explicit constitutional violation exists, even if these issues are of public importance and may warrant political discussion and calls for greater accountability in governance.

In summary, the Attorney General has defended the electoral bond scheme by emphasizing its role in ensuring clean political contributions and maintaining the confidentiality of contributors. He has also argued that the judiciary should primarily intervene in cases where existing constitutional rights are infringed upon rather than addressing matters that lack clear constitutional violations.

The upcoming hearing by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, commencing from October 31, will address a series of pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme designed for political party funding. Introduced by the government on January 2, 2018, the scheme was proposed as a way to replace cash donations and enhance transparency in political funding.

Under the scheme’s provisions, electoral bonds can be purchased by any Indian citizen or entity incorporated or established in India. The bonds can be bought individually or jointly with other individuals. The Supreme Court’s constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is set to consider four pleas, including those filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the CPI(M). Other members of the bench include justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.

This hearing holds significant importance as it will determine the legality and implications of the electoral bond scheme, addressing the concerns raised by various parties regarding its impact on transparency and accountability in political funding.

On January 20, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to issue an interim stay on the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. The court requested the responses of both the Central government and the Election Commission regarding an interim application filed by an NGO seeking a stay on the scheme.

Furthermore, the eligibility criteria for receiving electoral bonds dictates that only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and securing at least one percent of the votes polled in the preceding general election to the Lok Sabha or the state legislative assembly are qualified to receive electoral bonds. This criterion aims to ensure that the electoral bonds are distributed among established political parties with a significant voter base, potentially curbing the misuse of the system.

According to the notification, electoral bonds can only be cashed by eligible political parties through an account with an authorized bank. This measure ensures that the electoral bonds are handled through a regulated and traceable financial system.

In April 2019, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Electoral Bond Scheme and emphasized that it would conduct a comprehensive hearing on the petitions. The court acknowledged the weighty issues raised by both the Central government and the Election Commission, recognizing their significant implications for the integrity of the electoral process in the country.

Notably, the Center and the Election Commission previously presented differing perspectives in the court concerning political funding. While the government aimed to maintain the anonymity of donors, the Election Commission advocated for the disclosure of donor names to promote transparency in the electoral process. This contrast in viewpoints underscores the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, necessitating a thorough examination by the judiciary to balance transparency with the protection of donor identities.