Bhushan: The SG said it has an objective. The objective was to limit the black money coming to political parties...and many individuals and companies do not want to be known due to victimisation.
Bhushan: These changes defeat the citizens' right to know who is contributing to the political parties. Because they introduce another anonymous source of funding.
Justice Khanna: Their second contention is that the need to know the name of the donor has been protected for 1,2,3,4 reasons. When you're examining the reasons you have to see what the intent behind the action was.
Justice Khanna: The intention was to ensure that money comes through regular banking channels- there is a KYC required which is not there as far as cash is concerned. And even if it is coming through banking accounts, second KYC is second added advantage.
CJI: That may not impinge upon validity of the scheme.
Bhushan: Yes. All they're saying is that this whole exercise was to bring down cash. They say cash is equivalent to black money. The object was to make political funding of parties to come more through banking channels
Bhushan: That doesn't make any practical difference because all that the political party declares is- I have received x crores as donations which are below 2000 rs...
Bhushan: The only change that has been made is- for getting income tax exemptions, that 20,000 has been brought down to 2000. That's all. Otherwise cash donations up to 20,000 can be given to political parties and they're not required to be reported
Advocate Prashant Bhushan commences his rejoinder.
Bhushan: It need not close the cash channels. The amendment has left open cash channels.
CJI: Mr Bhushan, 15 mins in rejoinder for you...we will wrap up today.
Sharma: I stand corrected, we have the data on political party.
Sharma: We get data of every candidate.
Justice Khanna: Candidate will not suffice.
Sharma: We don't get the expenditure of a political party in a particular election. It is candidate specific.
Justice Khanna: Then your data is incomplete.