The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Election Commission on a plea challenging the legality of anonymous cash donations below Rs 2,000 to political parties. The petition claims such funding harms voter rights and weakens transparency in India’s electoral process.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, retiring on November 10, clarified that judicial independence does not mean always opposing the government. He criticized pressure groups that demand favorable rulings, emphasizing that true independence requires judges to make unbiased decisions based on law and constitution, resisting manipulation in today’s media-driven society.
The Supreme Court Bar Association publicly disavows President Adish Aggarwala’s request to the President of India for a presidential reference on the electoral bonds case, regarding it as an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s authority. This move raises concerns about the integrity and independence of legal institutions, leaving lingering questions about Aggarwala’s motivations.
The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, will hear SBI’s plea on March 11 for an extension until June 30 to disclose electoral bond details from April 2019. This plea has implications for political funding transparency. The court will also address a contempt plea filed by ADR. The complexity of tracking and reporting these financial instruments is underscored.
Answers to Why State Bank of India (SBI) has requested an extension until June 30 to disclose the identities of Electoral Bond donors to the Election Commission, postponing the disclosure until after the Lok Sabha elections in April-May, are here. SBI outlined logistical challenges, highlighting the complexities involved in complying with the Supreme Court’s directive, emphasizing transparency while safeguarding donor anonymity.
The Supreme Court is set to deliver a verdict on the legal validity of India’s electoral bonds scheme, which allows anonymous donations to political parties. The contentious issue has sparked intense debate, with proponents emphasizing transparency and critics highlighting concerns about anonymity. The court’s decision, expected on Thursday, will have significant implications for political funding in India.
