The Supreme Court rejected the review petition challenging its February 15 judgment by which the electoral bonds scheme was struck down. A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara. “Application for listing the review petitions in open Court is dismissed. Delay condoned. Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” the Court said.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition challenging its earlier verdict from February 15, in which the Electoral Bonds Scheme was struck down.
A Constitution Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, rejected the review petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara.
The Court stated:
“Application for listing the review petitions in open Court is dismissed. Delay condoned. Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.”
The February 15 ruling by the Supreme Court had unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties through the purchase of bearer bonds from the State Bank of India (SBI).
Electoral bonds were financial instruments resembling promissory notes or bearer bonds that could be purchased by any individual, company, or association of persons, provided they were Indian citizens or incorporated entities in India. The bonds came in various denominations and were specifically designed to facilitate contributions to political parties.
The introduction of these bonds was enabled through the Finance Act of 2017, which amended key statutes including the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Representation of People Act.
The Finance Act allowed electoral bonds to be issued by any scheduled bank, primarily for electoral funding. However, since the Act was passed as a money bill, it bypassed the need for approval from the Rajya Sabha.
Multiple petitions were subsequently filed before the Supreme Court, challenging at least five amendments made through the Finance Act of 2017. Petitioners argued that these changes had paved the way for unregulated and undisclosed funding of political parties. Furthermore, they contended that the Finance Act should not have been classified as a money bill.
On February 15, the Supreme Court not only struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme but also quashed the amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which allowed donations to remain anonymous. The Court further directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to provide the Election Commission of India (ECI) with details of all political parties that had received contributions via electoral bonds from April 12, 2019.
The Supreme Court ruled that the anonymous nature of the Electoral Bonds Scheme violated the right to information and thereby infringed on the right to free speech and expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Following this ruling, a review petition was filed, contesting the Supreme Court’s decision.
The review petitioners argued that by striking down the scheme, the Supreme Court had effectively acted as an appellate authority over Parliament, replacing legislative wisdom on a matter that falls exclusively within the purview of legislative and executive policy. They further claimed that public opinion on the matter could be divided, with a significant portion of citizens potentially in favor of the scheme.
“The Court failed to notice that even assuming the issue is justiciable, the Petitioners therein having not claimed any specific legal injury exclusive to them, their petition could not have been decided as if a private litigation for the enforcement of rights which are specific and exclusive to them,”
-the petition stated.
The petitioners also contended that while the scheme may not have completely eradicated the influence of black money in politics, it was intended to bring a degree of transparency by allowing contributions to be made confidentially to political parties.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the petition, found no grounds for reconsidering its previous ruling, thus dismissing the review petition.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Electoral Bonds
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
