On October 31, the SC will hear petitions challenging the election bond program

The Supreme Court set the deadline for the final hearing on arguments against the legality of the electoral bond plan for financing political parties on Tuesday, October 31.

The arguments of attorney Prashant Bhushan that the dispute needed to be resolved before the electoral bond program opened for the 2024 general elections were noted by a bench consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, judges J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The anonymous money provided by electoral bonds encourages corruption and infringes on people’ rights to live in a country free from that vice. Bhushan stated while speaking on behalf of the ngo Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

According to him, “This promotes corruption as the funding source is anonymous, it violates Article 21, and the “non-decision” in the case only makes matters worse.”

The bench responded, “We are here and hearing this right now. The court retained up to four petitions for final hearing on October 31 after hearing some preliminary arguments about the electoral bond plan. If the hearings go on, the bench indicated it could continue on November 1 to hear the petitions.

The highest court had previously said that it may decide whether to transfer the arguments against the legality of the electoral bond mechanism for financing political parties to a constitutional bench for a “authoritative pronouncement.”

In March, one of the PIL petitioners said that, of the Rs 12,000 crore in electoral bonds that have been issued to far, two-thirds had gone to one major political party.

In order to facilitate a smooth hearing of the PILs, the bench selected two attorneys, among them Neha Rathi, as nodal counsel. The court said that these attorneys will work together to ensure that a common compilation of judgments and other documents is submitted.

Prior to this, the top court had said on January 31 that the three sets of petitions regarding the electoral bonds system, including those contesting changes to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and those placing political parties within the purview of the Right to Information Act, would be handled individually.

The court had said that it will hear arguments challenging the legislation allowing financing of political parties under the electoral bond system in the third week of March.

As part of attempts to increase openness in political fundraising, electoral bonds have been proposed as an alternative to financial contributions given to political parties.

Attorney Bhushan has asked the Supreme Court to list the PIL immediately and to order the Centre to refrain from opening any more windows for the issuance of electoral bonds while the case involving the financing of political parties and the alleged lack of transparency in their bank accounts is pending.

Before the assembly elections in West Bengal and Assam in March 2021, the NGO, which had filed the PIL on the matter of alleged corruption and subversion of democracy through illicit and foreign funding of political parties and lack of transparency in all political parties’ bank accounts, had moved an interim application, asking that the sale of electoral bonds not be reopened.

On January 20, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected an NGO’s request for an interim suspension of the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme and requested comments from the Centre and the Election Commission.

On January 2, 2018, the government announced the Electoral Bond Scheme.

Election bonds may be acquired in accordance with the scheme’s regulations by individuals who are Indian citizens, companies incorporated or founded in India, or both. A person may purchase electoral bonds on their own or in a group with other people.

Election bonds may only be received by political parties that are registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that received at least 1% of the vote in the most recent general election for the Lok Sabha or the state’s Legislative Assembly.