The Supreme Court’s invalidation of the electoral bonds scheme emphasizes the balance between privacy and public information in political funding. Dwivedi underscores judicial review’s role in protecting fundamental rights, while the court’s ruling prioritizes transparency by requiring donor and party contribution disclosure.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Supreme Court has emphasized the complex balance between privacy rights and public access to information, especially in political funding.The unanimous decision by a five-judge bench to strike down the electoral bonds scheme has a significant discourse on the sovereignty of government promises and the overarching power of judicial review.
Senior advocate and constitutional expert, Rakesh Dwivedi, elucidated on this matter, stating:
“According to our Constitution, when Parliament enacts a law, it is established and well settled that it is subject to judicial review. The constitutional courts have the authority to assess that law based on fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.”
This emphasizes that laws can be reviewed, especially when fundamental rights are involved.
Electoral bonds, introduced in 2017 and officially initiated in 2018, aimed to promote transparency in electoral funding. They permitted individuals and corporations to donate to political parties without revealing their identities. These bonds, ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore, were exclusively accessible through designated branches of the State Bank of India (SBI).
ALSO READ: Bar Leader Urges CJI for Review of Electoral Bonds Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision on February 15 to invalidate the electoral bonds scheme was largely celebrated for upholding the citizens’ right to information regarding political contributions. The directive for the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to disclose the details of donors and the amounts redeemed by each political party marked a significant step towards transparency.
Dwivedi commented on the court’s decision, emphasizing the intrinsic checks and balances within the system:
“When we act based on a law, we understand that this law will be subject to scrutiny in court if challenged.”
He further explained the judiciary’s role, stating:
“Therefore, in that sense, the sovereign promise ceases to exist when a law is invalidated, and consequences ensue.”
The senior advocate also addressed the intricate balance the court had to uphold between donors’ privacy and the public’s right to information. He strongly asserted that in the context of democracy,
The latter carries more significance:
“I don’t believe the privacy of individuals donating money to political parties takes precedence in these situations. The importance of democracy outweighs that.”
Despite the court’s decision, Dwivedi offered a nuanced perspective on political funding, acknowledging that receiving donations from private industries has long been a part of Indian politics.
He contended-
“The scrutiny of who paid and what was paid is inconsequential.”
According to him, overturning the electoral bonds scheme may not drastically change the dynamics of political donations, which often benefit ruling parties.
However, Dwivedi also posited that the Supreme Court could have approached the issue differently. Instead of completely abolishing the scheme, the court could have removed the anonymity feature, thereby retaining the framework for transparent political funding.
ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE || Electoral Bonds | SC Denies Industry Bodies’ Plea to Conceal Bond Numbers
He suggested:
“If transparency was the issue the law could have been upheld with transparency; as a result of striking down, money will flow (into political parties) in any event, whatever you may do.”
The Supreme Court’s decision on electoral bonds emphasize the ever-changing nature of law and democracy. It reiterates that while government assurances are important, they are not unconditional and must respect the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution