Supreme Court throws out electoral bonds, demands transparency in political funding!

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India has struck down the electoral bonds scheme, deeming it unconstitutional and a violation of citizens' right to information. The controversial scheme, implemented in 2018 to curb black money in political funding, had allowed anonymous donations through bonds purchased from the State Bank of India.

Key takeaways:

Unanimous decision: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pronounced the unanimous verdict, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.

Reasons for judgment: The court found the scheme's confidentiality clause hindering transparency and potentially leading to quid pro quo arrangements. While acknowledging the objective of reducing black money, they ruled that anonymity was not the only solution and could even facilitate its entry.

Immediate action: The court directed the State Bank of India to cease issuing bonds immediately and disclose past donations to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by March 13, 2024. The ECI must publish this information on its website.

Corporations affected: Amendments allowing unlimited corporate donations without disclosure were also struck down. The court recognized the higher influence potential of companies compared to individuals and emphasized the need for transparency in such contributions.

Reactions: Advocates for transparency hailed the verdict, including Prashant Bhushan representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), who highlighted the scheme's opacity and potential for corruption. The ECI, which had originally opposed the scheme, is likely to be encouraged by the outcome.

Implications:

This verdict marks a significant shift in India's political funding landscape. The immediate impact is the end of anonymous donations through electoral bonds, potentially hindering anonymous sources of income for political parties. Additionally, the ruling raises questions about the future of corporate donations and the balancing act between transparency and individual participation in political funding.