Bhushan: The Election Commission had pointed this out! That look this will open up the gates to shell companies being used to donate money to political parties.
Bhushan: ECI has stated that this scheme was a retrograde step as far as transparency was concerned..."this opens up the possibility of shell companies being set up for the sole purpose of making donations to political parties..."
Bhushan: When this scheme was introduced the Election Commission and the Reserve Bank of India strong objected to it. See the objections of ECI.
Justice Khanna: Your first argument was right to information.
CJI: Let's look at the material
Bhushan: See the interim orders.
CJI: Suppose a donor is carrying out business in a state. If the name of donor is made available to all parties, the rival parties may say... especially if you're not donating to political party in power.
CJI: There is an assumption that if you disclose the name of the donor, there will be other political parties who will know that you contributed to this party and therefore you might be subject to...
CJI: But you don't have to have a representation from a donor to perceive that reluctance. Your RTI response will not carry out your submissions.
Bhushan: One of the justifications by government was that donors are reluctant to show who they're funding. So we asked was any representation received from any donor?
Bhushan (reading an RTI response): "No representation or petition or communication has been received by donors regarding the need of maintaining confidentiality of the identity while making donations"
Bhushan: If you had said that any political party can only take donation by banking channels and you cannot take through cash as it is corrupt practice- that would have helped.