Justice Khanna: Because we have this opacity with regards to who is funding, the issue that may come up is, if there is a quid pro quo, how does anyone establishes it?
The petitioners have concluded their submissions.
CJI: You may want to reassess your position. Come to the appropriate HC and challenge specific provisions of the election law which according to you have disparate impact on parties representing Bahujan causes.
Counsel: Why should I not get anonymity when it is given to all political parties?
CJI: It's not that your party alone espouses the cause of marginalised sections. There are mainstream political parties which equally espouse the cause of marginalised groups because they depend upon them as their constituents.
CJI: You can receive donations, just not through electoral bonds.
Counsel: People will definitely not come to me based on my ideology. They want to be anonymous. It affects me directly.
Justice Gavai: A political party must have atleast 1% votes. Tomorrow you may have 2 persons party and may claim donations.
Counsel: That is a barrier to entry.
Counsel: First, there is a cap stating that only parties which secure more than 1% votes shall be eligible to receive electoral bonds. There is no rationale nexus.
Counsel: We represent a political party. The issue is that as a party which espouses the cause of Dalits and other marginalised people, this scheme has a more severe effect on us than other parties. There's a hostile discrimination as far as our parties are concerned.
Hegde: As an intervenor, I support the petitioner and I make a further case that even the law as it currently stands- your lordships can make further directions to reduce opacity.