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.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a contempt petition Today against the State Bank of India (SBI) for seeking an extension to disclose electoral bond details. This defiance of Supreme Court’s order and the ensuing legal battle reflects the struggle for transparency in political funding, with far-reaching implications for India’s political and financial systems.
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 State Bank of India (SBI) has approached the Supreme Court with a plea to extend the deadline for disclosing details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission. The national banking giant has requested an extension until June 30, citing the need for additional time to compile the comprehensive data required by the Election Commission. […]
A retired judge, Justice DSR Varma, filed a complaint in Hyderabad on February 27, alleging that he was defrauded of Rs 2.5 crore by two individuals who promised to provide BJP electoral bonds and opportunities in the US. The accused failed to deliver the bonds, raising concerns about political funding misuse and the need for stricter safeguards.
The Supreme Court of India is currently poised to address a pivotal legal question that has significant implications for the legislative process in the country: What precisely constitutes a money Bill? This inquiry has gained prominence against the backdrop of contentious decisions, including the recent invalidation of the electoral bond scheme and the 2018 affirmation […]
Prime Minister Modi criticized the Supreme Court, suggesting that even a revered figure like Lord Krishna could be accused of corruption in today’s world. This comes after the Supreme Court invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, citing violations of citizens’ right to information and potential quid pro quo arrangements. The Court mandated immediate disclosure of donation details and cessation of electoral bond issuance.
The Supreme Court of India has struck down the electoral bonds scheme, emphasizing the voters’ entitlement to information about electoral candidates. The scheme was found to disproportionately impact this right and failed to be the least restrictive measure in curbing black money. The Court’s decision marks a significant step towards enhancing transparency and equity in political funding.
The Supreme Court of India declared Electoral Bonds unconstitutional, garnering praise from the Congress party. The ruling emphasizes prioritizing votes over financial influence, aligning with the party’s commitment to transparency and democratic integrity. This pivotal decision highlights the importance of upholding democratic principles and transparency in political financing.
The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bonds scheme unconstitutional, annulling the amendments to the Income Tax and Representation of People Act. The scheme’s anonymity violated rights to information and expression. The State Bank of India was instructed to stop issuing electoral bonds, and transparency on donations and recipients was mandated. The decision addressed the unequal impact of corporate and individual contributions.