Taking a swipe at the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Modi remarked that in contemporary times, even an act like Sudama offering rice to Lord Krishna could potentially be labeled as corruption.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: PM Modi (Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi) delivered a pointed remark aimed at the Supreme Court, suggesting that even revered figures like Lord Krishna could face allegations of corruption in today’s world if scenarios like Sudama offering rice were scrutinized.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Declares Electoral Bonds Scheme Unconstitutional
Reflecting on a conversation with expelled Congress member Acharya Pramod Krishnam, who expressed his inability to offer anything to the Prime Minister, Modi remarked that it was fortunate he refrained, considering how contemporary society tends to magnify trivial matters.
He recounted:
“Acharya Pramod Krishnam mentioned that everyone possesses something to offer, but he had nothing to give except his sentiments. Pramod ji, it’s fortunate that you refrained from presenting anything to me. In today’s context, if Sudama were to offer rice to Lord Krishna and footage of the act emerged, it might spark a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court, resulting in a verdict alleging corruption against Lord Krishna. It’s preferable that you conveyed your sentiments without making any offerings.”
This comes after the Supreme Court invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, which permitted anonymous donations to political parties.
A five-judge Constitution bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra unanimously quashed the scheme along with amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which had facilitated anonymous donations.
ALSO READ: Electoral Bonds Judgment | In The Supreme Court
The Court ruled that the anonymous nature of the electoral bonds scheme violated the right to information and impinged upon free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
“The Electoral Bonds Scheme, as well as the proviso to Section 29(1)(c) as amended by Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and Section 13(b) as amended by the Finance Act 2017, violates Article 19(1)(a),”
-the judgment stated.
The Court mandated that the State Bank of India, as the issuer of electoral bonds, must disclose details of political parties that received electoral bonds and provide all relevant information to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by March 6.
By March 13, the ECI must publish this information on its official website, and political parties must subsequently reimburse the amount of electoral bonds to the purchasers’ accounts.
Two judgments were rendered, one by CJI DY Chandrachud and the other by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, both concurring.
The Court asserted that the scheme could advantage the party in power.
“Economic inequality results in varying levels of political engagement. Access to information influences policy-making and may also lead to quid pro quo arrangements, which may benefit the party in power,”
-the judgment stated.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that the electoral bonds scheme could not be justified by claiming that it would combat black money in politics.
ALSO READ: Electoral Bonds Case | Chronology of Events
Lastly, while acknowledging the importance of donor privacy, the Court emphasized that transparency in political funding cannot be achieved by granting absolute exemptions.
The bench had on November 2, 2023 reserved its judgment on the case concerning the legal validity of the scheme, after a three-day hearing.
The Supreme Court while reserving its verdict had asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit data up till September 30, 2023 regarding electoral bonds sold under the scheme.
Major Remarks Made by the Supreme Court Regarding Electoral Bonds
- The electoral bonds scheme is unconstitutional and violates citizens’ right to information, potentially leading to quid pro quo arrangements.
- The issuing bank, particularly the State Bank of India, must immediately cease the issuance of electoral bonds. Additionally, details of donations made through electoral bonds and the recipient political parties must be disclosed.
- Financial contributions to political parties serve two purposes: either to support a political party or as a form of quid pro quo.
- Not all political contributions aim to influence public policy; some are made by students, daily wage workers, etc. Thus, denying privacy protection to political contributions solely based on certain motives is impermissible.
- Contributions by companies have a more significant impact on the political process compared to individual donations. Such contributions are often business transactions. Treating companies and individuals alike under the Companies Act Section 182 amendment is arbitrary.
- The electoral bonds scheme is not the sole method to address black money in politics. There exist alternative solutions to tackle this issue.
CASE TITLE:
[Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr vs Union of India Cabinet Secretary and ors].
Read/Download Judgment-
LAWCHAKRA-Electoral_Bonds_JudgmentDownload
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
