SC to hear pleas challenging electoral bond scheme for political funding
New Delhi: A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence hearing from October 31 a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme for political funding of parties.
The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.
According to the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be purchased by any citizen of India or entity incorporated or established in India. An individual can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly with other individuals.
The bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is scheduled to take up the batch of four pleas including those filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the CPI(M).
The other members of the bench are justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
On October 16, the top court said, “In view of the importance of the issue raised, and with regard to Article 145(4) (relating to rules for regulating procedure of SC) of the Constitution of India, the matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges...”
On October 10, the top court had taken note of the submissions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for
NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), that the matter needed adjudication before the electoral bond scheme opens for the 2024 general elections. Anonymous funding through electoral bonds encourages corruption and violates the citizens’ right to have a corruption-free nation, Bhushan had said.
“This promotes corruption as the source of funding is anonymous. It is violative of Article 21 and the ‘non-decision’ in the case is compounding the problem,” he had submitted.
One of the PIL petitioners had claimed in March that Rs 12,000 crore so far has been paid to political parties
through electoral bonds and two-thirds of the amount has gone to one major political party. The top court had on March 21 said it will consider whether the pleas can be referred to a constitution bench for an “authoritative pronouncement”.
