The Supreme Court will continue hearing today a batch of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme.A Constitution bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is hearing the matter. Yesterday, Adv Prashant Bhushan, for Association for Democratic Reforsm, commenced arguments for petitioners & asserted that amendments to FCRA,...
The Supreme Court will continue hearing today a batch of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme.
A Constitution bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is hearing the matter. Yesterday, Adv Prashant Bhushan, for Association for Democratic Reforsm, commenced arguments for petitioners & asserted that amendments to FCRA, RPA, Income Tax Act & Companies Act violated citizens' Right to information and promoted corruption. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Advocate Shadan Farasat (for CPI(M)) and Advocate Nizam Pasha advanced arguments yesterday. In yesterday's proceedings, the Supreme Court also commented on the lack of control over transactions involving Electoral Bonds owing to the transferability of the bonds.
Follow this page for live-updates from today's hearing :
The bench has risen for the day. The matter to resume tomorrow.
CJI: But if you really wanted to have that scheme and have a level playing field, then all these donations should be given to the Election Commission of India which would then be distributed on an equitable basis!
SG: Then nothing will come and everything will be by cash.
CJI: You're absolutely right! That shows us the motivation for these donations.
CJI: You can maintain confidentiality. We take your point that it's designed to ensure that people aren't victimised. We're not saying that that would be a better scheme or the government should adopt the scheme.
Sibal: I hope your lords are talking about his arguments
CJI: Yes Yes, that's his arguments.
SG: If this scheme didn't come, if I had to pay kickback. I will pay kickback by way of cash. Even considering the case to be worst case, the amount will now come in white money in channels.
CJI: It is legalising kickbacks.
SG: It'll still be an offence, I'll show.
CJI: Is it not liable to say give rise to kickbacks or legalising kickbacks? It's a question. Not a hypothesis. In the earlier scheme, a person collects 50 cr. He's not gonna deposit 50 cr in the coffers of the party. He has his share in that.
CJI: Now it goes to the party, doesn't go to the individual. That's the benefit. The party gets it as opposed to the individual. We have no way of knowing whether this is legalising the motive for the in flow of the fund.
CJI: We got your point. Your case is that this is the political system whether you like it or not. We're atleast trying to improve it. The fact that we succeed or not doesn't reach out to the constitutional validity of it.
SG: The government cannot find out whether my learned friend has given to A party or B. That I will show from the scheme. But ultimately, you have to trust somewhere.
Justice Khanna: If confidentiality is given, how do we ensure what was called quid pro quo - how do we ensure that this is checked?
SG: This concept of selective confidentiality, I have to remove. There is complete confidentiality.
CJI: Where is the statutory obligation on state Bank of India to maintain that confidentiality?
SG Mehta: I'll show that. There is a confidentiality.
CJI: The heart really is whether we accept this submission - that look, if you require disclosure of identity, whether we like it or not, our political system is such that there would be a sense of vindication - that you paid this to this political party.
Justice Khanna: There are two aspects- one, whether by giving confidentiality to a donor you ensure a greater public interest is served. Second, selective confidentiality. What happens is the person in power can have access to it.
SG: If I buy Kisan Vikas Patra, it won't show I'm giving it to my daughter. It only shows that I bought Kisan Vikas Patra.
SG: Now when it is given to a political party, the party would deposit in a designated account. That account also will have to reflect in statement of accounts of that political party which will be filed before ECI. ECI would know atleast 500 cr have come by way of clean money.
SG: In case of cash, nobody knew. I may go with a bag of 50 cr to a political party and nobody would know- where the money went, what it was used for.