In a significant development, the central government has informed the Supreme Court that the Constitution does not grant voters the right to be informed about the funding of political parties. This statement was made in anticipation of the hearing on petitions challenging the electoral bond scheme.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, in a written submission to the court, emphasized that while Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides citizens the right to know the antecedents of electoral candidates, it does not grant a
“general right to know everything.”
This implies that details related to electoral bonds should not be made public.
Also read- Supreme Court To Revisit Controversial Electoral Bonds Scheme On October 31 (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court, with a five-judge bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud, is set to hear the petitions on Tuesday, October 31, which challenge the electoral bonds scheme as “opaque and undemocratic.”
Venkataramani’s submission further clarified that the constitutional rights of voters are specifically in the context of making informed decisions about electoral candidates based on their backgrounds. Such rights do not necessarily extend beyond this scope. He stated,
“Information limited to such knowledge serves a specific end of citizens’ choice of electing candidates free from blemish. Right to know for specific rightful expression was thus conceived. From that, it cannot be said that the right to know for general or broad ends necessarily follows.”
Also read- Supreme Court Refers Electoral Bonds Case To Constitution Bench (lawchakra.in)
Drawing attention to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties case in 2003, Venkataramani highlighted that the right to be informed about a candidate’s criminal history cannot be equated with a general right to know any and all information.
The Attorney General also urged the court to refrain from making decisions on this matter without a clear constitutional law, asserting that the electoral bond scheme is entirely fair. He mentioned,
“The scheme in question extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor. It ensures and promotes clean money being contributed. It ensures abiding by tax obligations.”
Venkataramani further noted the democratic significance of contributions to political parties and emphasized that such matters should be subject to political debate and governance accountability. He cautioned against making decisions without comprehensive parliamentary debates.
The five-judge bench, which also includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, will hear the matter, which was referred to them due to the significance of the issues raised.
Also read- Parliamentary Panel Recommends Reinstating Adultery Law And Section 377 (lawchakra.in)