The Supreme Court of India expressed concerns about the "selective anonymity/confidentiality" associated with electoral bonds. During a hearing on petitions challenging the electoral bond scheme, the Chief Justice and other Justices questioned why the ruling party tends to receive a substantial portion of donations through these bonds, raising the possibility of expectations linked to these donations.
The Supreme Court raised concerns on the "selective anonymity/confidentiality" that electoral bonds offer.
What is Selective Confidentiality
- Selective confidentiality”, which does not prevent the ruling party from unearthing the identities of donors to
Opposition parties and then hounding them through its investigative agencies.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud verbally questioned Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta about his assessment as to why the "substantial portion" of donations go to the ruling party. "Why is it that the ruling party gets the substantial part of donations? It's with an expectation, right?" the CJI asked.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Sanjiv Khanna verbally questioned that "if there is any quid pro quo involved (between the donor and political parties receiving the donations), how can it be established". Justice Khanna further asked if the "unaccounted money can be circulated back to the system" by a ruling party.
Justice Khanna verbally remarked that the "grey area" in the electoral bonds scheme is the "selective confidentiality" granted to the donor. Adding to this, the CJI sought to know the "element of transparency" in the funding made to political parties using electoral bonds.
The development took place during the resumed hearing of a clutch of petitions challenging the Centre's electoral bond scheme permitting anonymous funding to political parties.
The CJI remarked that the "donor need not be the actual buyer of the electoral bond". And that it is the balance sheet of the buyer of the electoral bond which will reflect the purchase and not the balance sheet of the donor. "The source of money is not known, the actual owner (of the electoral bond) is not known and where it's spent is not known," the CJI said.
The CJI went on to verbally further remark that the "problem is if it suffers from opacity as argued (alleged) by the petitioners." The CJI clarified that it is not the function of the court to say what the electoral scheme should be. "This is not to prevent legislation. We are not saying what it should be. That's not a part of our function," he clarified.
He questioned the Solicitor General asking him whether the "selective confidentiality" permitted in the electoral bonds would not result in "legalising kickbacks".
He questioned the Solicitor General asking him whether the "selective confidentiality" permitted in the electoral bonds would not result in "legalising kickbacks".
Source: Economic Times
Comments
Post a Comment