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.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to include political parties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act will be heard tomorrow. The petitioner argues that transparency in political funding is essential for democracy. The case aims to compel parties to disclose financial details and enhance accountability, potentially transforming Indian political practices.
Today(on 2nd August),The Supreme Court has refused to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged ‘quid pro quo’ deals in the Electoral Bond Scheme. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s bench is assessing the matter. The court had previously declared the scheme unconstitutional for not disclosing political party funding, prompting the State Bank of India to stop issuing the bonds.
The Supreme Court will hear a PIL seeking a court-monitored investigation into the electoral bonds scheme on July 22. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra scheduled the hearing after reviewing submissions from lawyer Prashant Bhushan representing Common Cause and CPIL.
Today (6th May): Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor has recommended the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe into allegations of political funding received by Arvind Kejriwal’s party from the “Sikhs For Justice” group. Kejriwal, currently in Tihar Jail, faces legal challenges, and the situation remains uncertain, with potential implications for Delhi’s governance and administration.
![[Electoral Bond Data] SBI Refuses to Disclose Data Under RTI Act](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-23.png?resize=447%2C269&ssl=1)
On Wednesday (10th April): The State Bank of India (SBI) refused to disclose electoral bond data under the RTI Act, citing exemptions related to fiduciary capacity and public interest. This refusal, including the denial of information about the payment to lawyer Harish Salve, has raised concerns about transparency and accountability, undermining democratic principles and public interest. The case may reflect future changes in RTI Act exemptions under the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of the electoral bonds scheme highlights the balance between privacy and transparency in political funding. The decision emphasizes the crucial role of judicial review in safeguarding fundamental rights and underscores the significance of public access to information about political contributions. This ruling signifies the evolving nature of law and democracy.
On sunday (17th March): The Election Commission of India disclosed details about electoral bonds, revealing significant financial flows to political parties. The data lacks donor identities, maintaining anonymity in political funding. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling challenges the secrecy of the scheme and advocates for more transparency in political party funding, sparking discussions about regulation.
On Friday (14th March):Union Home Minister Amit Shah advocated for reforming the electoral bond system to enhance transparency and accountability in political funding. He respects the Supreme Court’s decision but suggests that modifications could address concerns. Shah defended the BJP’s benefit from the scheme and emphasized the need for improvements rather than its elimination.
On Thursday (14th March):Future Gaming and Hotel Services led by Santiago Martin emerged as the top purchaser of electoral bonds, acquiring bonds worth Rs 1,368 crore, followed by Megha Engineering Infrastructure Limited at Rs 966 crore and Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited at Rs 409 crore. The data also reveals extensive involvement of prominent political parties in the electoral bond scheme, reflecting bipartisan participation. The Election Commission, complying with Supreme Court’s directions, released comprehensive information for public scrutiny, enabling citizens to evaluate political affiliations and activities. The State Bank of India provided detailed information on electoral bond purchases and redemptions in adherence to the court’s directive. Additionally, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously invalidated the electoral bonds scheme and related amendments, disallowing anonymous donations.