Editor's Pick | SC strikes down electoral bonds scheme

In a landmark unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary” the electoral bonds scheme, which provides blanket anonymity to political donors, as well as critical legal amendments allowing corporates to make unlimited political donations. A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that the scheme, and preceding amendments made to the Representation of the People Act, the Companies Act, and the Income Tax Act, violated the voters’ right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Here The Hindu explains in detail why the scheme was struck down. The lead opinion authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud said the absolute non-disclosure of the source of political funding through electoral bonds promoted corruption, and a culture of quid pro quo with the ruling party to introduce a policy change or for bagging a licence. The scheme and the amendments authorised the “unrestrained influence of corporates in the electoral process”, it said. The judgment belled the cat on the deep nexus between money and politics, saying “contributions made by companies are purely business transactions made with the intent of securing benefits in return”. It said the scheme and the amendments promoted “economic inequality” by giving corporations with financial power an unsurpassable advantage over ordinary citizens in the electoral process and political engagement. “This is violative of the principle of free and fair elections and political equality captured in a value of ‘one person, one vote’,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said. The court analysed that the majority of the anonymous financial contributions through electoral bonds were made to political parties in power and the biggest gainer was the ruling BJP. The SC concluded that the anonymity promised by the Union government through electoral bonds was hardly “fool-proof”. In fact, the anonymity advertised in the electoral bonds scheme was meant for the public, not for the political party receiving the money, the court noted. It ruled that the fundamental right to privacy covers information about individual political affiliations. The Opposition welcomed the verdict, hailing it as a step towards the “revival of democracy” and the end of a scheme that “legalised corruption.” The Congress said it would provide a level playing field in elections. Activists and former Election Commissioners also welcomed the order, and called it a major step towards bringing transparency in the realm of electoral funding. The BJP, meanwhile, insisted that the scheme had a “laudable objective of bringing transparency in poll funding”. The party said the government introduced electoral bonds as part of its efforts to reform election funding. In striking down the scheme, the SC has recognised this malaise and struck a blow for democracy and transparency in political funding, notes an editorial in today’s edition of The Hindu. “While the verdict may help ease the hold that donors may have on governance through money power, a question that arises is whether the validity of the scheme could have been decided earlier or the issuance of bonds on a regular basis stayed. How much of the thousands of crores of rupees given to parties under this scheme resulted in policy measures favourable to the donors or helped fund the deployment of additional campaign resources will never be known,” it adds. Some petitioners and activists also feel that matching buyers of electoral bonds with recipients will be tricky The Hindu’s Editorials Unbonded: On the striking down of the Electoral Bond Scheme by the Supreme Court A strongman at the helm: On Indonesia’s presidential election The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz Who was the President of India during 1987-1992? K.R Narayanan Giani Zail Singh N. Sanjiva Reddy R. Venkataraman To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 16 February 2024 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]Open in browser [Mail icon]More newsletters SC strikes down electoral bonds scheme In a landmark unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday [struck down as “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary” the electoral bonds scheme]( which [provides blanket anonymity to political donors]( as well as critical legal amendments allowing corporates to make unlimited political donations. A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that the scheme, and preceding amendments made to the Representation of the People Act, the Companies Act, and the Income Tax Act, violated the voters’ right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Here The Hindu [explains in detail why the scheme was struck down](. The lead opinion authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud said the absolute non-disclosure of the source of [political funding through electoral bonds promoted corruption]( and a culture of quid pro quo with the ruling party to introduce a policy change or for bagging a licence. The scheme and the amendments authorised the “unrestrained influence of corporates in the electoral process”, it said. The judgment belled the cat on the deep nexus between money and politics, saying “contributions made by companies are purely business transactions made with the intent of securing benefits in return”. It said the scheme and the amendments promoted “economic inequality” by giving corporations with financial power an unsurpassable advantage over ordinary citizens in the electoral process and political engagement. “This is violative of the principle of free and fair elections and political equality captured in a value of ‘one person, one vote’,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said. The court analysed that the majority of the anonymous financial contributions through electoral bonds were [made to political parties in power and the biggest gainer was the ruling BJP](. The SC concluded that the [anonymity promised by the Union government through electoral bonds was hardly “fool-proof”](. In fact, the anonymity advertised in the electoral bonds scheme was meant for the public, not for the political party receiving the money, the court noted. It ruled that the [fundamental right to privacy covers information about individual political affiliations]( [The Opposition welcomed the verdict]( hailing it as a step towards the “revival of democracy” and the end of a scheme that “legalised corruption.” The [Congress said it would provide a level playing field in elections]( [Activists and former Election Commissioners also welcomed the order]( and called it a major step towards bringing transparency in the realm of electoral funding. The BJP, meanwhile, insisted that the [scheme had a “laudable objective of bringing transparency in poll funding”](. The party said the government introduced electoral bonds as part of its efforts to reform election funding. In striking down the scheme, [the SC has recognised this malaise and struck a blow for democracy]( and transparency in political funding, notes an editorial in today’s edition of The Hindu. “While the verdict may help ease the hold that donors may have on governance through money power, a question that arises is whether the validity of the scheme could have been decided earlier or the issuance of bonds on a regular basis stayed. How much of the thousands of crores of rupees given to parties under this scheme resulted in policy measures favourable to the donors or helped fund the deployment of additional campaign resources will never be known,” it adds. Some petitioners and activists also feel that [matching buyers of electoral bonds with recipients will be tricky]( The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][Unbonded: On the striking down of the Electoral Bond Scheme by the Supreme Court]( [Arrow][A strongman at the helm: On Indonesia’s presidential electionÂ]( The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz Who was the President of India during 1987-1992? - K.R Narayanan - Giani Zail Singh - N. Sanjiva Reddy - R. Venkataraman To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here](. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Best Reads [[Highway toll collector IHMCL removes Paytm Payments Bank from list of banks authorised to issue FASTag] Highway toll collector IHMCL removes Paytm Payments Bank from list of banks authorised to issue FASTag]( [[I-T department freezes bank accounts of Congress, Youth Congress; party approaches appellate tribunal] I-T department freezes bank accounts of Congress, Youth Congress; party approaches appellate tribunal]( [[Karnataka budget outlay pegged at ₹3,71,383 crore, ₹52,000 crore for guarantee schemes] Karnataka budget outlay pegged at ₹3,71,383 crore, ₹52,000 crore for guarantee schemes]( [[Farmers’ protest | After ‘positive’ discussion, Centre-farmers to hold fourth round of meeting on February 18] Farmers’ protest | After ‘positive’ discussion, Centre-farmers to hold fourth round of meeting on February 18]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](