The Supreme Court has noted that electoral bonds provide “selective anonymity” and “confidentiality” as purchase records are available with the State Bank of India and can be accessed by investigative agencies. This response came during the second day of hearing challenges to the legal validity of the electoral bonds scheme. The government argued that the provision for anonymous donations is necessary to protect donors from “victimisation and retribution” if the party they did not donate to wins the election. However, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud pointed out that the scheme only provides selective anonymity and is not confidential with respect to the State Bank of India or law enforcement. The court also expressed doubts over the government’s argument that declaring the scheme void would lead to a situation where “the safest course is to pay by cash.” The court believes that the electoral bonds scheme is a “complete information hole” and questioned whether proportional means have been adopted to bring more white money into political funding. The petitioners challenging the scheme argued that it creates an artificial distinction between bank transfers and anonymous donations, and that it defeats citizens’ right to know about political parties’ sources of funding. The scheme, which was introduced in 2018, was meant to provide an alternative to cash donations and bring transparency to political funding. Only political parties with more than one percent of votes polled in the last Lok Sabha or state election can receive electoral bonds.
Supreme Court Continues Hearing on Electoral Bonds on Day 2
