Sibal: The corporate sector gives money to political party. The corporate sector owns a media house. Just look at the nexus. The political party uses the media house. No question asked
SG: Don't bring such instances
Sibal: I'm not talking about any instance.
Sibal: The nomenclature suggests that electoral bonds means for the purpose of elections. There is nothing in the scheme which connects the donations made to the participation in the electoral process. It's a means for political parties to be enriched.
Sibal: I make a donation of 10 crores to a political party through Electoral Bonds. The party can give it to a mainstream media channel and say propagate my ideology or give a present to someone.
CJI: There is no spending requirement.
Sibal: None! You can spend this money however. You can build your office. You can set up a whole internet network throughout the country. You can use advertising campaign - show your face 20 times a day.
Sibal: I'm saying that by Electoral Bonds you're not informing the shareholders as to how their money is going to be spent. That's a serious issue because he invested in the company, not for purposes of donating to x or y.
Sibal: Fourth, this is nothing to do with electoral bonds if you ask me. It is donation to a political party to use the funds as they like.
CJI: Just one caveat- we are not here on the challenge to the legality of a law providing for corporate donations per se. Wider issue is not that... because 293 already allows that.
CJI: The latter part- without consent and consultation is considered.
Sibal: This is what I'm saying.
CJI: The moment we accepted 293, our society legitimised corporate quit pro quo. There is an element of qui pro quo the moment you have a corporation...the large public limited company who makes a donation doesn't give it for charity.
Sibal: Three, the moment you allow the corporate sector to donate, whether with transperancy or without transperancy, it is inconsistent with the concept of a corporate sector which is in the business of doing business.
Sibal: The shareholders put in their money to ensure that the corporation functions within the framework of MoU. Now you give the power through an amendment of this nature to allow shareholders money to be used inconsistent with the MoU.
Sibal: And this is done without consultation or consent of shareholders. Under which law can this ever be allowed?
Sibal: Capital and influence go hand in hand. In fact, in the very concept of a market economy - capital symbolises power. And it may be in any sector of the economy as it is in politics.
Sibal: The more capital you have the more power you get. Second, the Electoral process must be such that it provides a level playing field to all participants. Fair and free elections is the basic structure of the Constitution.
Bhushan: This will destroy democracy! Already democracy has become a money game
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal commences his arguments.
Bhushan: Earlier you could be prosecuted for corruption if you had given donations to a political party who in turn had given you some favours in terms of mining contracts etc. But now because noone will know as to who has donated, whether you've received quid pro quo- it is promoting corruption.
CJI: In the case of a company, now even shareholders will not be told who you're contributing to. The shareholders will only be given the net result that we've given 250 cr as donations.
Justice Khanna: Even if the earlier regime was there, the donations to the ruling party would always be more sizeable in number compared to non ruling party.
Bhushan: True to some extent. But here you're giving kickbacks.
CJI: Another point you may want to also explore is that this is not an anonymised donation in relation to a donee. It's anonymised donation in relation to the rest of society. The donee may or may not but could know of the sources.