LI Network
Published on: October 30, 2023 at 12:43 IST
Attorney General R Venkataramani, in a filing before the Supreme Court concerning the electoral bonds case, contends that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, citizens do not possess the right to information regarding the funding of a political party.
Refuting the petitioners’ argument challenging the electoral bonds scheme, the Attorney General asserts that there is no general right to unfettered information. Additionally, he maintains that judgments affirming citizens’ right to know about the criminal history of electoral candidates should not be extrapolated to imply a right to information about party funding.
The AG emphasized that such information, limited to informed electoral choices, aims to ensure an election process free from irregularities. He highlights that the right to know serves specific purposes and does not encompass broad or general access to information, especially regarding political party funding under Article 19(1)(a).
Regarding the electoral bonds scheme, the Attorney General highlighted its promotion of clean money and adherence to tax responsibilities, affirming that it does not infringe upon existing rights.
He emphasized that the court’s role isn’t to create new rights or intervene in the absence of a clear constitutional violation.
The case challenging the electoral bonds scheme is scheduled for hearing before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on October 31, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
The matter was referred to this bench for its significance, following an earlier referral by a 3-judge bench.
The Attorney General further emphasized that the testing of a new law should occur through public and parliamentary debates, not court-driven guidelines.
The case challenges the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 facilitating the electoral bonds scheme, which allows donors to purchase bonds anonymously and without disclosure to the Election Commission of India.
These amendments have sparked concerns among political parties and NGOs, challenging the scheme’s obscure funding system and its potential to prioritize private corporate interests over public needs.