CJI: You can still design a system which balances out in a proportional way. How it is to be done that's up to you, that's not our arena.
CJI: These five considerations you must read in perspective of implementation. First there was a cap on net profits - which meant the company was in profit. Now you say it has nothing to do with profits. So a company may have zero profit and it may get revenue only for donations
CJI: But there is a fourth consideration - the need of transperancy. And there is a fifth consideration that this should not become a legitimisation of kickbacks and quid pro quo between the power centres and people who are benefactors of that power.
CJI: It's not that there is an either or- that either you do this or go back entirely to cash. You can design another system which doesn't have the flaws of this system- they put a premium on opacity.
CJI: There are three or four important considerations - 1. The need to reduce the cash element in electoral process; 2. The need to encourage use of authorised banking channels; 3. Incentivising use of banking channels- by confidentiality.
SG: There cannot be a system where donor and donee do not know
Justice Khanna: If this is so, why not make it open? As it is, everyone knows. The only person who is deprived is the voter.
SG: In Srinath ji temple I may put money anonymously. That is idealistic.
CJI: That is not idealistic. Because the assumption is that the almighty knows who has put money.
SG: Technically any party can feign ignorance that someone came and in my postal box there was an envelope with 100 cr. Nobody donates like that. We donate like that in pilgrimage.
SG: I'll explain the scheme. You'll see that bonafide of government are writ large. One or two suggestions I'll give - your lordships' conscience would be satisfied that the scheme is not designed to ensure that ruling party knows- it's not even the intention.
CJI: Is it your contention that under this scheme, the ruling party doesn't know who donors are?
SG: Every party knows who their respective donors are. Confidentiality is for other parties.
SG: The business houses vote on basis of whether this party is giving me an environment for my business. It's not always quid pro quo. As a businessman I would choose- that this party govt whenever it is formed there is red tapism, corruption, interference by ministers...
SG: It's a full proof scheme. There may be some lacuna here and there and we are ready to improve.
SG: Purity of election is supreme over the right to vote. Voter votes not based on which party is funded by whom, voter votes based on ideology, principle, leadership, efficiency of the party.
Justice Gavai: What about voters' right?
SG: Voter's right is to know what party gets what information. I would not choose to vote for a party because Mr X a contractor has given Electoral contribution to A. That's a utopian dream. We have to form policies on practicalities.