The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional, stating it violates the fundamental Right to Information, allowing citizens to know who contributes to political parties
Impact on Transparency
The scheme was criticized for its lack of transparency, as it allowed donors to contribute anonymously to political parties, raising concerns about the potential for undue influence
Directive to State Bank of India (SBI)
Supreme Court directs SBI to halt electoral bond issuance, mandates disclosure of parties' bond encashment details by March 13
Right to Privacy vs. Transparency
Verdict stresses privacy rights and transparency in political funding, recognizing citizens' right to privacy and affiliation
Quid Pro Quo Concerns
The court highlighted concerns about financial support to political parties potentially leading to quid pro quo arrangements, undermining democratic principles
No Matching Exercise Required
SBI directed to skip "matching exercise," focusing on disclosing bond transactions without connecting donors to parties
Protests and Public Reaction
Public and political reactions included protests by Youth Congress workers outside an SBI branch in Mysore, highlighting the widespread concern and engagement with the issue
Legal and Political Commentary
Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi and others laud the verdict as historic, boosting democracy
Arbitrary and Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court also found amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies to be arbitrary and unconstitutional
Future of Political Funding
This verdict sets a precedent for future regulations and reforms in political funding in India, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the political finance system