The Supreme Court on Friday posted for December 6 a batch of petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds brought through a 2017 law to fund political parties with the stated aim of curbing the use of black money in elections. The petitions have been pending for six years.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna agreed to defer the hearing after the Centre sought more time.
The bench was hearing public-interest litigation by non-governmental organisations Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and others, claiming the bonds introduced through the Finance Act 2017 largely benefit the ruling party.
The Centre submitted that the bonds are a transparent mode of political funding and it is impossible for parties to get black money or unaccounted money.
In a brief hearing for the first time on Friday after the last posting on March 26, 2021, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayananand advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, pressed for early hearing of the matter next week or in November, ahead of the assembly elections due in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, submitted that several Constitution bench hearings are scheduled next month and urged that the matter be pushed to January 2023.
The petitioners objected and insisted on the early listing. Ultimately, the bench posted it for December 6. When Mr Sibal sought an earlier date, Justice Gavai said: “The matter has been pending for the last six years in any case.”
At the last hearing of the case, a bench led by then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had refused to stay the bonds scheme ahead of assembly elections in five states, observing that there are sufficient safeguards in the scheme.
On the donors’ anonymity,the bench had said it could be “pierced” by culling out information from records filed before public authorities. When Mr Bhushan told the bench that the Election Commission was slated to announce elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh and the bonds are issued before every election, Mr Mehta said: “This is not an election-related issue.”
Mr Sibal wanted the matter to be heard by a larger bench. But the court wondered if a reference could be made without finding any conflict with other judgments. Mr Sibal then referred to Article 145 that says that constitutionally important matters should be heard by Constitution benches.
The Attorney General then suggested a threshold hearing by the bench before deciding on a reference.
Electoral bonds were introduced throughtheFinance Act 2017,amending the RBI Act, Companies Act, Income Tax Act, Representation of Peoples Act (RPA) and Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act.
The petitioners have called the scheme “an obscure funding system, unchecked by any authority” while amendments to the Companies Act 2013 would lead to “private corporate interests taking precedence over the needs and rights of the people in policy considerations”.
.png)
