Today (15th March): The Supreme Court reviewed the Election Commission’s free symbol allocation policy today following a plea by Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK), an unrecognized Tamil Nadu-based political party. NTK challenged the fairness of the first-come, first-served allocation process. The court will examine Paragraph 10B(B) of the Election Symbols Order post-holi vacation to ensure transparency in symbol allocation.
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.
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has called for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine electoral bonds. He criticized the lack of action by investigative agencies and highlighted the need for impartial scrutiny. The disclosed data reveals diverse contributors to political parties, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in political funding mechanisms.
“Supreme Court Labels ‘INDIA’ Acronym PIL a ‘Publicity Stunt’, Dismisses Plea” The Supreme Court, in a recent hearing, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to restrain 26 opposition parties from using the acronym I.N.D.I.A, which stands for Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, for their alliance. The court’s stance was clear […]
