Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions for SIT Probe into Electoral Bonds Allegations.

INTRODUCTION:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a clutch of petitions that had sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team for investigating alleged quid-pro-quo arrangements in place of a controversial electoral bonds scheme. The judgment delivered on August 5, 2024, has opened up a vibrant debate about transparency and accountability in political funding in the world's largest democracy.

?

BACKGROUND:

Under the Electoral Bonds Scheme introduced by the Government of India in 2018, any individual or corporate entity can buy such bonds from specified banks to donate to political parties. The bonds are issued in denominations starting from ?1,000 to ?1 crore; the identity of donors is kept confidential. The scheme's stated objective is to bring transparency to political funding and curb the influence of black money in elections.

?

The scheme has, however, never lacked controversy since its very inception. Opponents say it offers a conduit for opacity, not transparency, by allowing anonymous donations to facilitate quid pro quo arrangements between donors and political parties. Such concerns are only strengthened by reports suggesting that a large proportion of those donations have ended up in the hands of the ruling party, marring the overall fairness and impartiality of the scheme.

?

Amongst the many petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional and demanding an investigation into the alleged misuse of the scheme for quid pro quo arrangements came up in the apex court, the latter heard a related plea about the lack of transparency in the scheme. According to petitioners, transparency undermines the democratic process and allows unchecked corporate influence over political parties.

?

KEY ASPECTS:

1. Dismissing the Petitions:

?Supreme Court, in its judgment, dismissed the petitions which had sought SIT probe into alleged quid pro quo arrangements about electoral bonds. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India D.Y Chandrachud held that the evidence furnished was inadequate to constitute the SIT.

?

2. Legislative Domain:

It held that issues relating to electoral bonds lie solely within the legislative domain. Unless such policy decisions are patently unconstitutional, the courts cannot interfere with the same. The scheme was brought into force after due legislative process, and any change or modification in the scheme has to be left to the legislature, reiterated the bench.

?

3. Role of Election Commission and RBI:

The judgment underlined the role of both the Election Commission of India and the Reserve Bank of India in monitoring the actual implementation of the electoral bonds scheme. It said that while both have raised their reservations over the scheme, they have not been able to bring on record any substantial evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement. The court wants these institutions to continue monitoring the scheme and rectify the defects as and when they come to their notice.

?

4. Transparency and Accountability:

While dismissing the petitions, the court accepted the importance of transparency and accountability in political funding. In its judgment, the bench recommended that the government consider steps towards making the electoral bonds scheme more transparent, through periodic disclosure of the total amount of bonds purchased and the identities of donors, without compromising their confidentiality.

?

5. Public Interest and Democratic Process:

While upholding the decision, the court pointed out that public interest and the democratic process have to be kept in mind. The bench said it was conscious of the apprehensions raised by the petitioners but held that the evidence furnished could not be connected, on a balance of probabilities, to any quid pro quo arrangement under the electoral bonds scheme. Any decision to either tinker with or withdraw the scheme has to be taken through democratic means, including public debate and legislative scrutiny, the bench held.

?

IMPLICATIONS AND REACTIONS:

The judgment of the Supreme Court has received mixed reviews from different quarters. Propnents of the electoral bonds scheme have welcomed the ruling, terming it a recognition of the requirement for legislative oversight and respect for the separation of powers between the courts and the legislature. They said the scheme has brought in some transparency in the funding of political affairs to some extent as the donations made are all through formal banking channels. However, the rivals of the plan criticized the verdict and dubbed the judgment to be a missed opportunity to correct the alleged opacity and possible misuse of the scheme. They point out that the very principle of open funding for politics gets defeated by such confidentiality of donors and opens the gates for undue influence by corporate entities over political parties.

Political analysts and legal experts have, therefore, pointed out that the findings of the ruling could lead to renewed efforts to push for legislative amendments aimed at making the electoral bonds scheme more open and accountable. The Election Commission and the RBI will be at the very forefront of such an endeavor so that changes brought in respect of the scheme conform with democratic governance and public interest.

?

CONCLUSION:

The judgment of the Supreme Court that dismissed petitions that sought the constitution of an SIT probe into the alleged quid pro quo arrangements connected with electoral bonds is very significant in light of the continuing debate about political funding in India. While the judgment would only redouble the emphasis on ensuring legislative oversight and transparency, it underlines the challenge of balancing confidentiality with accountability in political donations. The debate will increasingly focus on legislative measures for fine-tuning the electoral bonds scheme to best serve the interests of a robust and transparent democratic process.

?

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

?

WRITTEN? BY: PAYAL DEVNANI

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?