Electoral bond scheme transparent: Govt to SC

Mehta said this as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that free-and-fair elections was a basic feature of the Constitution but under the scheme, it is not known who is funding parties and that “this is destructive of free-and-fair elections”.

Mehta added: “So to say, it affects democracy, etc. does not hold water”.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan said petitions touch three important interconnected issues which go to the very root of democracy — the question of electoral bonds; whether political parties come under the RTI; and about retrospective amendments to Foreign Contribution Regulation Act which says that subsidiaries of foreign companies will not be treated as foreign source thereby allowing donations to political parties, public servants, etc. “And the question in all these cases is whether amendments can be made through a money Bill which don’t even go to the Rajya Sabha for approval,” he pointed out.

Justice Gavai said the matter would need a detailed hearing.

Sibal said the matter involves questions that would require interpretation of the Constitution and hence it may have to be referred to a larger bench.

Attorney General R Venkataramani and the SG said the court should first look into the matter and only then take a call on whether it should be referred [to larger Bench] or not. With both sides agreeing, the court fixed the hearing on December 6.

The matter last came up in the court on March 26, 2021, when a bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India S A Bobde dismissed an application filed by the petitioners seeking stay on any fresh sale of electoral bonds ahead of the Assembly elections that were due at the time.

The top court had questioned claims regarding “complete anonymity” of the purchasers of the bonds and said “it is not as though the operations under the scheme are behind iron curtains incapable of being pierced”.

Dismissing the prayer not to allow any new window for their sale till its main petition challenging the scheme is decided, the court pointed out that the bonds had already been issued in the past without any impediment and that it had ordered “certain safeguards”.

“Therefore, in the light of the fact that the scheme was introduced on 2.1.2018; that the bonds are released at periodical intervals in January, April, July and October every year; that they had been so released in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 without any impediment; and that certain safeguards have already been provided by this Court in its interim order dated 12.4.2019, we do not see any justification for the grant of stay at this stage. Hence, both the applications for stay are dismissed,” the SC had said.

The court’s reference was to its April 12, 2019, interim order by which it directed political parties to “forthwith” submit details of donations received through electoral bonds to the EC.