NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved the pleas challenging the validity of Central government’s electoral bond scheme, directing the Election Commission to provide within two weeks all data on donations that political parties received through the scheme till September 30 this year.
A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the electoral bonds scheme for funding political parties should not become a tool for “legitimisation of quid pro quo” between power centres and people who are benefactors of that power, stressing the need for reducing the cash component in the electoral process.
After hearing for three days the pleas against the Centre’s scheme introduced in 2017, the bench also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), among others.
During the hearing, the bench also said that at this stage, it will not ask the State Bank of India to reveal the identity of the donors, but it would like to know about the quantum of bonds subscribed. A major contention of the petitioners was that the identity of the donors could never be known to the public.
On Wednesday, the bench had said the scheme “provides (only) selective anonymity... confidentiality” as its purchase records are available with the SBI and can be accessed by investigative agencies. The bench on Thursday asked the Election Commission to provide the updated data on the scheme in a “sealed cover”, in line with a 2019 SC order.
The apex court noted that the 2019 order was not restrictive to the date on which it was pronounced, and if there was any ambiguity, it was necessary for the poll panel to seek a clarification from the court. Defending the Centre, Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta had told the court that donations made through electoral bonds are kept anonymous to protect the privacy and political affiliation of the citizens who make such donations to political parties.
“Each and every word was very consciously used and what the petitioners have called ‘anonymity or opaqueness’ was neither anonymous nor opaque but was ‘confidentiality by design’,” he had argued.
The bench asked the Election Commission’s counsel about the quantum of electoral bonds subscribed, to which he said he had some data in compliance with the earlier court order, and he can place it. As the court asked whether it is updated or not, the counsel said the details are not updated after 2019.
“You have to continue to collect the data,” the bench said, adding that the Election Commission never came back to the court for clarification if there was any doubt regarding the earlier directive. “You should have got the data when you were coming to the court… That day, we had emphasized and all of us had expressed the view and we expected you to come back with the data,” the bench told the Election Commission’s counsel.
The counsel said he can provide the data and the Election Commission can seek details from all political parties. He further informed the court the data was to be given six months after a financial year got over.
“You ought to have the data. You will have the total quantum of electoral bonds and what is the bifurcation between different political parties,” it told the Election Commision’s counsel, who said the poll panel will have to collate that. “File the data as of March 31, 2023 and submit it to us. You can give us the data till September 30, 2023,” the bench said.