On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark ruling declaring that the electoral bonds scheme violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, marking a significant moment in the discourse on political funding and transparency.
Understanding Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. This fundamental right allows individuals to freely express their opinions, ideas, and thoughts through various means such as writing, speech, visual representations, and print. It is a cornerstone of democratic principles, ensuring that citizens can participate in the public discourse without undue restriction.
What Was the Electoral Bonds Scheme?
Introduced by the central government on January 2, 2018, the electoral bonds scheme was designed as a transparent alternative to cash donations made to political parties. Under this scheme, Indian citizens and entities incorporated in the country could purchase electoral bonds. These bonds could be bought either singly or jointly and were intended to support political parties with financial contributions.
The scheme was purportedly aimed at increasing transparency in political funding by providing a mechanism where donations were recorded and traceable, albeit anonymously. The bonds could be purchased from designated branches of the State Bank of India (SBI) and redeemed by political parties, supposedly ensuring a clean and transparent process.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s ruling declared that the electoral bonds scheme, particularly its provisions anonymizing contributions, infringes upon the right to information of voters. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the scheme violates Article 19(1)(a) by impeding voters’ right to know who is funding political parties, thereby affecting their ability to make informed decisions.
The court noted that the fundamental right to privacy encompasses not just personal privacy but also political privacy and affiliation. By anonymizing contributions, the electoral bonds scheme prevents voters from being aware of the financial backers behind political parties, which undermines their right to a transparent political process.
More Read
Impact and Directions
In addition to striking down the electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court has mandated that the State Bank of India (SBI) disclose detailed information about the donations made through the scheme. Specifically, SBI must reveal the details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination of the bonds.
The court directed that this information be submitted to the Election Commission of India by March 6, 2025. The Election Commission is then required to publish these details on its official website by March 13, 2025. This move aims to enhance transparency and ensure that voters have access to information about political funding.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for political funding and transparency in India. By invalidating the electoral bonds scheme, the court has addressed concerns about the lack of transparency in political donations and reinforced the importance of voters’ right to information.
This decision could prompt a reevaluation of how political contributions are regulated and disclosed, potentially leading to new legislation or reforms aimed at improving transparency in political funding. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that democratic processes are conducted with integrity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the electoral bonds scheme is a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over political funding in India. By affirming that the scheme violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court has underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in the democratic process. The requirement for SBI to disclose details of bond transactions further supports the court’s commitment to ensuring that voters have access to critical information that impacts their electoral choices.
