Review plea in SC claims electoral bonds case alleged ‘make-believe violation of fundamental rights’

The petitioner admitted that the scheme would not have totally eradicated black money, but claimed it nevertheless had brought in “some element of transparency” by embracing confidentiality about donors.

Photo used for representation purpose only. File

A review petition in the Supreme Court has sought a review of a Constitution Bench judgment which struck down the electoral bonds scheme “alleging a make-believe violation of fundamental rights”.

The petition said the Parliament, where petitioner-lawyer Mathews J. Nedumpara was “symbolically present”, had ushered in the scheme through an amendment in the Finance Act to curb black money.

Admitting that the scheme would not have totally eradicated black money, the petitioner claimed it nevertheless had brought in “some element of transparency” by embracing confidentiality about donors.

In its judgment in March, the Constitution Bench had held that the scheme violated the public’s right to know about political funding and freedom of speech and expression. It gave large contributors, giant corporations a high seat at the banquet table by promoting a culture of quid pro quo. The scheme had revealed the deep nexus between political parties and lobbies with deep pockets.

But the review petition argued that the “electoral bonds scheme is by no means a perfect mechanism, nonetheless, it is in the province of legislative policy reflecting the will of the people”.

The Supreme Court acted as an appellate authority over the Parliament, substituting its wisdom on a matter which falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy.

The plea said the court failed to notice that the “public opinion could be sharply divided and the majority of the people of this country could probably be in support of the scheme”.