SG: One of the questions was what happened after the scheme was introduced. We have given that trend.
SG: The legislature has a right of trial and error unless it is so abhorrently arbitrary that it can never satisfy the conscience of the court.
SG: This scheme enhances free and fair elections. It shifts donations from cash to banking channels. I will read a few paragraphs from RK Garg.
SG: BJP is the ruling party in Orissa- they have maximum political contribution. That's the trend, that's how people in India contribute. It's not because of scheme. It's not because of that that people contributed to ruling party and there is no level playing field.
SG: Secrecy per se is not antithetical to free and fair elections. Sometimes it enhances free and fair elections. Like the present case.
SG: The average Indian voter- be it corporate or an illiterate voter- is a very intelligent decision maker. A ruling party in 2013, though ruling party may not get max contributions, because the voter knows that in 2014 the wind is somewhere else.
SG: Secrecy is not an alien concept in Electoral issues. Secrecy of ballots.
Justice Khanna: That is something separate. In the uneven level playing field, you have referred to fairness of elections, that issue is not being addressed.
SG: Even the government doesn't know it...Right to information cannot be claimed from me.
SG: If anything beyond that is encouraging cash economy to enhance, that your lordships can balance and that would be in the legitimate state's interest.
SG: The legitimate state interest is linked to public interest. You have the right to information, no denial but you have the information which company purchases how many bonds and you have the information in public domain, which party got how many bonds
SG: Your lordships can accept my right of informational privacy as against the general right to know. If there is a genuine public interest in the disclosure, you go to the court. But merely for curiousity, you cannot invade someone's privacy.