LI Network
Published on: November 01, 2023 at 00:05 IST
The Supreme Court, during the first day of hearings on a batch of petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds scheme, made remarks acknowledging the difficulties in controlling Electoral Bond transactions due to the transferability of the bonds.
A Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, considered the arguments raised by the petitioners.
The discussion revolved around the anonymity of Electoral Bonds. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that, in practical terms, the scheme was not truly anonymous since the donors would inform the political parties about their donations, potentially engaging in a quid pro quo arrangement.
Chief Justice Chandrachud illustrated the lack of control over Electoral Bond transactions by describing how these bonds, being bearer bonds, could be transferred freely, making it practically impossible to prohibit their trading.
Justice Khanna added that such transactions could obscure the identity of the real purchaser of the bonds, eliminating concerns regarding quid pro quo arrangements.
The discussion pointed out the challenge of transparency in Electoral Bonds, impacting citizens’ participation in the democratic process. Sibal raised broader concerns about the scheme’s implications, including its potential to favor the party in power and violate constitutional principles.
In his arguments, Sibal made five key submissions:
- He highlighted the connection between capital and influence in a market economy, emphasizing that financial resources in politics can significantly affect governance decisions.
- He stressed the importance of a level playing field in the electoral process, emphasizing that free and fair elections are a fundamental part of India’s constitutional structure.
- Sibal expressed concerns about corporate sector donations to political parties, questioning the lack of consultation or consent from shareholders when their funds are used for political contributions.
- He argued that the Electoral Bonds scheme does not require donations to be linked to electoral participation, potentially allowing parties to enrich themselves without clear spending requirements.
- Sibal raised concerns about how the scheme’s anonymity might protect individuals involved in corruption and bribery, making it challenging to trace and prosecute such offenses.
Sibal concluded by emphasizing the importance of corporate funding being directly linked to the electoral process and ensuring a fair and equitable political environment.
The hearing will continue in subsequent sessions.