SC to look if Constitution bench should hear pleas against poll bond scheme; hearing on April 11

The petitioners then urged the court to refer the electoral bonds question to a Constitution bench, saying it involves questions that go to the “very core of our democratic process”. Advocate Shadan Farasat said it will be better to refer it to a Constitution bench for an “authoritative pronouncement”.

Backing the request, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who also appeared for the petitioner side, urged the court to advance the hearing to April in view of the upcoming Karnataka Assembly elections.

The bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, asked the counsel appearing for the Centre for its views on the submission. The Centre’s counsel responded that the Attorney General will argue on the point of reference.

Agreeing, the court fixed April 11 to hear the matter to examine if it requires consideration by a Constitution bench.

Taking up the petitions in January this year, the Supreme Court had said that they raised three separate issues: a challenge to electoral bonds, whether political parties should be brought under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and amendments made to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The court had said it would hear all three issues separately.

While the Centre had termed the scheme “a big step towards electoral reform”, which “will ensure transparency” and “accountability”, petitioners contend that it affects transparency in political funding since it allows political parties not to disclose their annual contribution reports to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and details of the identity of those who have donated through electoral bonds.

In April 2019, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, in an interim order, directed political parties that received donations through electoral bonds to “forthwith” submit details of the bonds to the ECI.

Rejecting the prayer to stay the sale of fresh bonds yet again in March 2021, the Supreme Court had disputed the petitioner’s contention regarding “complete anonymity” of bond purchasers. The court had said, “It is not as though the operations under the scheme are behind iron curtains incapable of being pierced.”

The court had pointed out that bonds had been issued in the past — in 2018, 2019 and 2020 — “without any impediment” and it had already ordered “certain safeguards” by way of its April 2019 interim order.

The court had also referred to the ECI receiving details of contributions received through bonds in pursuance of the April 2019 order and said, “We do not know at this stage as to how far the allegation that under the scheme, there would be complete anonymity in the financing of political parties by corporate houses, both in India and abroad, is sustainable.”