Electoral bonds scheme verdict | Anonymity in scheme was ‘selective’, not ‘fool-proof’: Supreme Court

For rich donors who already have a seat at the table, the electoral bonds scheme offered selective anonymity vis-à-vis the public, not the political party receiving their money, says Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice DY Chandrachud pronounces the judgement on the petitions challenging the Electoral Bonds Scheme, in New Delhi on Thursday. Supreme Court strikes down Electoral Bonds scheme. Supreme Court says Electoral Bonds scheme has to be struck down as unconstitutional. | Photo Credit: ANI

The Supreme Court on Thursday concluded that the anonymity promised by the Union government through electoral bonds was hardly “fool-proof”. In fact, the anonymity advertised in the electoral bonds scheme was meant for the public, not for the political party receiving the money, the court said.

“While it is true that the law prescribes anonymity as a central characteristic of electoral bonds, the de jure anonymity of the contributors does not translate to de facto anonymity,” a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed in its judgment quashing the scheme.

The court underscored the fact that 94% of the contributions were made through the purchase of electoral bonds in the denomination of one crore rupees. It wondered whether contributors would really want to remain anonymous after donating such large sums.

“Electoral bonds provide economically resourced contributors who already have a seat at the table selective anonymity vis-à-vis the public and not the political party,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

Multiple loopholes

The five-judge Bench found enough and more “gaps” in the electoral bonds scheme for political parties to know the identity of and even personally get in touch with political contributors.

Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to Clause 12 of the scheme, which stated that an electoral bond could be encashed only by the political party by depositing it in the designated bank account.

“The contributor could physically hand over the electoral bond to an office-bearer of the political party or to the legislator belonging to the political party, or it could have been sent to the office of the political party with the name of the contributor, or the contributor could after depositing the electoral bond disclose the particulars of the contribution to a member of the political party for them to cross-verify,” the judgment said, listing the loopholes.

The government had argued in court that the identities of contributors would not be revealed to political parties as their names would not appear on the electoral bonds or be disclosed by the bank.