+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.

'Part of Secret Ballot': How the Modi Govt Backed Electoral Bonds in the Supreme Court

The government had claimed that “donating money to one’s preferred party is a form of political self-expression that lies at the heart of privacy”.
Representative image of Indian currency notes. Photo: Syed Hussaini/Unsplash
Support Free & Independent Journalism

Good evening, we need your help!!

Since May 2015, The Wire has been committed to the truth and presenting you with journalism that is fearless, truthful, and independent. Over the years there have been many attempts to throttle our reporting by way of lawsuits, FIRs and other strong arm tactics. It is your support that has kept independent journalism and free press alive in India.

If we raise funds from 2500 readers every month we will be able to pay salaries on time and keep our lights on. What you get is fearless journalism in your corner. It is that simple.

Contributions as little as ₹ 200 a month or ₹ 2500 a year keeps us going. Think of it as a subscription to the truth. We hope you stand with us and support us.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on February 15 pronounced electoral bonds unconstitutional. The scheme was introduced by the Narendra Modi government in 2018 and allowed anonymous donations to political parties. To the Supreme Court, which heard pleas against the bonds last year, the Modi government spoke of its justification for the scheme – one which the court has now held as violative of the right to information.

In its written submission, the Union government had said that citizens’ right to know must be balanced with a person’s right to privacy while donating to political parties.

The Union maintained that the citizens did not have a “general right to know regarding the funding of political parties”, and emphasised that ‘right to know’ itself is not a general right available to citizens.

The government argued against the court examining the “influence of contributions by companies to political parties”, calling it an issue of democratic significance that would be “best left to the legislature.” The Union also asked the court to exercise judicial restraint citing the legislation’s connection to economic policy.

The government contended that the right of a buyer to purchase electoral bonds without having to disclose their political preferences ensured an individual’s right to privacy. The Union also told the court that “anonymous political donations” were a part of “the concept of secret ballot”.

The Union claimed that “donating money to one’s preferred party is a form of political self-expression that lies at the heart of privacy”.

It may be noted that the Union did not distinguish between individuals and corporations while arguing for the right to privacy of citizens while buying electoral bonds.

Also read: Electoral Bonds Are Illegal Now. But Who Benefitted for the 6+ Years They Lasted?

“The fact that one party has received more support through donations than other parties cannot in itself be the legal grounds to challenge the Electoral Bond Scheme”, the government told the court.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been the net gainer of the electoral bond scheme. Of the total number of electoral bonds worth Rs 12,008 crore sold between 2017-2018 and 2022-2023, the BJP received nearly 55% or Rs 6,564 crore. Meanwhile, Congress has received just 9.5% of all bonds sold in the five-year period at Rs 1,135 crore. The Trinamool Congress has received Rs 1,096 crore from electoral bonds in this same time period.

The court, while rejecting the Union’s argument in favour of exercising judicial restraint on account of the legislation being a part of “economic policy” said, “The court does not rely on ipse dixit [assertion] of the government, that a legislation is an economic legislation.”

“The amendment to Section 31 of the RBI Act can be classified as a financial provision… However, any resemblance to an economic policy ends there,” the court said, adding that the amendment in question fall under the following two heads:

1. Non-disclosure of information on electoral financing;
2. Provisions permitting unlimited corporate funding to political parties.

On both accounts, the legislation relates to the electoral process, the court said as it declared the electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional in its verdict today.

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter