Upholding Transparency: Supreme Court’s Electoral Bonds Case Verdict

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the electoral bonds program on Thursday.

In a historic decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court declared electoral bonds to be “unconstitutional” in a unanimous ruling. The five-judge panel led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud found that the program permitting political parties to receive anonymous money violated both Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to knowledge.

On a number of appeals contesting the legitimacy of the electoral bonds program of the central government, the supreme court was rendering a decision. For the BJP, which has benefited most from the system it instituted in 2017, the judgment appears to be a blow.

After rendering a decision, the Supreme Court gave three instructions in this case:

1. Political parties have fifteen days to return all of the purchased electoral bonds to the buyers.
2. Within one week of receiving the information, the Election Commission of India (ECI) would make all donations publicly available.
3. The State Bank of India (SBI) ought to stop issuing electoral bonds and provide the ECI with all relevant information by March 6.

What is the electoral bonds scheme?

During the 2017 Budget Session, former finance minister Arun Jaitley made the initial announcement of the electoral bonds program. Afterwards, it received notice in January 2018 that money bills bringing changes to the Finance Act and the Representation of the People Act were a source of political finance. The Reserve Bank of India Act, the Companies Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) were all amended by the Center in order to carry out the plan.

Only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and those that received at least 1% of the votes cast in the most recent elections to the Lok Sabha or a state legislative assembly are eligible to receive electoral bonds, per the scheme’s provisions.

However, a number of individuals and groups, including CPI(M), certain NGOs, and leaders of the Congress, filed petitions before the top court contesting the constitutionality of the program. The petitions claimed that the plan encouraged corruption and provided opportunities for shell corporations.