Context

• The Supreme Court is expected to hear the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the Centre’s electoral bonds Scheme soon.

• The scheme has generated much debate since its announcement in 2017, inviting concerns from the Election Commission, Reserve Bank of India, Parliament, and civil society.

What are the pleas challenging the scheme in the Supreme Court?

• There are two petitions challenging the scheme one jointly filed in 2017 by ADR and non-profit Common Cause, and another filed in 2018 by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) both largely asking for the same relief.

  

• Concerns about electoral corruption: They argued that the amendments made to multiple Acts to make way for the electoral bonds scheme would open the “floodgates” to unlimited political donations and anonymous funding of political parties by Indian and foreign companies, “legitimizing electoral corruption at a huge scale”, and would have “serious repercussions on the Indian democracy”.
  • The Election Commission submitted that contrary to the government’s claims, donations received through electoral bonds would cause a “serious impact” on transparency.
• Amendments to Finance Acts: In order to bring in the scheme, the Centre had made multiple amendments by way of two Finance Acts— Finance Act, 2017 and Finance Act, 2016, both passed as money bills (not necessitating the oversight of the Rajya Sabha). The petitioners challenged the amendments as being “unconstitutional”, “violative of doctrines of separation of powers” and violative of some fundamental rights.
  • The ECI said that the amendments would pump in black money for political funding.
• Amendment to the Representation of the People Act: The government amended Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, effectively exempting political parties from informing the ECI about the details of contributions made to them through electoral bonds. ADR argued that this would impact transparency and keep citizens from vital information about how much contribution a political party received and through what source, as the source or donor is anonymous under electoral bonds.
  • The ECI said that would prevent it from ascertaining whether the donations were received illegally from government companies or foreign sources, calling it a “retrograde step” for transparency.
• Companies Act amendment: The petitioners also objected to the amendment to the Companies Act 2013 such that no companies are required to give details of political contributions in their annual profit and loss accounts. The petitioners argued that this would increase “opacity” in political funding and the danger of “quid pro quo” in return for benefits passed to such companies by political parties. They also opposed the removal of the cap or ceiling for companies to make donations. Prior to 2017, companies were only permitted to make political donations of up to 7.5 % of net profits in the previous three years. This change, ADR argued, would allow even loss-making companies to make donations and result in the creation of unscrupulous companies only to route funds to political parties.
  • The ECI too flagged similar concerns about shell companies.
• Amendment to the FCRA Act: The petitioner opposed an amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA), allowing foreign companies with subsidiaries in India to fund Indian political parties, stating that it would expose “Indian politics and democracy to international lobbyists” having their own agendas.
  • The ECI too flagged concerns about this, saying it would invite foreign corporate powers to influence Indian politics.
• Income Tax Act amendment: The ECI also raised concerns about the amendment to the Income Tax Act 1961, allowing anonymous donations only less than Rs. 20,000. The poll panel said that due to this, ​many political parties had started “reporting a major portion of the donations received as being less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,000”.
• Infringing the ”Right to Know”: The petitioner ADR argued that the amendments infringed upon the citizen’s fundamental ‘Right to Know’, which various Supreme Court judgements have interpreted as part of the freedom of speech and expression. The plea said that the opacity and anonymity made political parties more “unanswerable and unaccountable” to the citizens at large.
• Derailing of ECI guidelines: The ECI said that the amendments derailed its 2014 guidelines on disclosure of expenditure and contributions received by political parties. It added that it had “time and again voiced the importance of the declaration of donations received by political parties” for “better transparency and accountability in the election process”.

What were the RBI’s concerns?

• The issuance of the bonds in the physical form or as bearer instruments would actually not serve the purpose of transparency as they are transferable, meaning that who finally contributes to the party “may not be known”.
• The bonds be issued in digital (demat) format, sincephysical ones could be transferred without leaving a trail, leading to possible money laundering.

What did the Supreme Court say in its previous two orders?

• The issue of electoral bonds was a “weighty” issue having a “tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country,” and that it required an in-depth hearing which could not be done in the limited timeframe.
• If the matter has been argued for stay and it was not granted, we will also not grant it.
• The sale of bonds in 2018, 2019, and 2020 had happened “without any impediment”.
• A little effort was required to pierce the veil of anonymity around electoral bonds.
• The court said that the bond was not tradable and asked why the first buyers would sell the bond to get black money in return for white.

Back to basics

What is the electoral bonds scheme?

• Electoral bonds are money instruments like promissory notes that can be bought by companies and individuals in India from the State Bank of India (SBI) and donated to a political party, which can then encash these bonds. The electoral bond does not bear the name of the donor and is, in effect, anonymous.
• The scheme was first announced by former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley during the 2017 budget session and was notified in January 2018. It was introduced to ”cleanse the system of political funding in the country” by eradicating the “menace of unaccounted money coming into the country’s economy through political funding”. The government contended that it would make political donations transparent while also protecting the identity of the donor.
• Under the scheme, bonds are available for purchase at any SBI branch in multiples of ₹1,000, ₹10,000, ₹1 lakh, ₹10 lakh and ₹1 crore and can be bought through a KYC-compliant account. There is no limit on the number of electoral bonds that a person or company can purchase.
• Every party registered under section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and having secured at least one per cent of the votes polled in the most recent Lok Sabha or State election has been allotted a verified account by the Election Commission of India. The donor can donate the bond to a party of their choice, which can cash it within 15 days, only through the allotted account.
• The bonds go for sale in 10-day windows in the beginning of every quarter, i.e. in January, April, July and October, besides an additional 30-day period specified by the Central Government during Lok Sabha election years.

Source: TH

Visit Abhiyan PEDIA (One of the Most Followed / Recommended) for UPSC Revisions: Click Here

IAS Abhiyan is now on Telegram: Click on the Below link to Join our Channels to stay Updated 

IAS Abhiyan Official: Click Here to Join

For UPSC Mains Value Edition (Facts, Quotes, Best Practices, Case Studies): Click Here to Join