On Thursday, February 15th, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on the electoral bonds case,
declaring that anonymous electoral bonds infringe upon the right to information as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, the scheme has been deemed unconstitutional and struck down.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance on electoral bonds
A constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB
Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, presided over a series of cases challenging the contentious electoral bonds scheme spanning three days. The bench subsequently reserved the verdict in November, with the judgment being delivered on Thursday morning.
The court pronounced its verdict on a live petition advocating for the abolition of the bonds. The scheme has been under intense scrutiny, with the apex court stating in November that the bonds “favor secrecy” and are susceptible to “potential misuse for money laundering.”
Why is disagreement over electoral bond?
Under the electoral bond system introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in 2018, these
bonds are required to be purchased from the State Bank of India but can be anonymously donated to political parties.
Although donors using electoral bonds are technically anonymous, the State Bank of India, which manages the bonds, is a government-owned bank. This means that the ruling party potentially has access to the information about who bought the bonds. Critics argue that this could discourage significant donors from using electoral bonds to contribute to opposition parties.
