‘Citizens have no right to information on funding of political party’: Centre on electoral bonds

Citizens do not have the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution regarding the funding of a political party, said Attorney General R Venkataramani in a statement filed before the Supreme Court in the electoral bonds case. AG Venkataramani refuted the arguments of the petitioners who challenged the electoral bonds scheme and said that citizens have the right to know about the funding source of a political party. 

"Firstly, there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions. Secondly, the right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise," said the AG, as reported by LiveLaw.

The AG argued that the judgements upholding citizens’ right to know of criminal antecedents of the candidates cannot be extrapolated to mean that they have the right to information on funding of political parties. He said that those judgements were in context of making an informed choice about electoral candidates. But the same cannot be read to understand that a citizen has the right to information about funding. 

A batch of petitions were filed to challenge the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 that made way for an anonymous electoral bonds scheme. 

The AG said that the electoral bonds scheme does not impinge upon any existing right of any person and cannot be said to be repugnant. “A law which is not so repugnant cannot be voided for any other reason. Judicial review is not about scanning State policies for the purposes of suggesting better or different prescriptions," the AG said, as per the report. 

On October 31, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is scheduled to commence hearing a batch of pleas challenging the electoral bond scheme. Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will be other members of the bench. 

The scheme was pitched as an alternative to cash donations for political parties. According to the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be purchased by any citizen of India or entity incorporated or established in India. An individual can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly with other individuals.

Some leaders from Opposition parties criticised the AG’s arguments in the apex court. 

“On the eve of the hearing of the Electoral Bonds case, the BJP has made its intentions clear The BJP will raise its funds from big corporates in an opaque, secretive and conspiratorial manner. The answer to this is transparent crowd-funding from small donors through recordable digital transactions. Let's see who wins: the Big corporates or the Small citizen who takes pride in contributing to a political party,” said Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram. 

“Hello BJP, it is a citizen’s democratic right, moral right, ethical right to know how parties are being funded and by whom while it is the government's job to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process. Such a shameful argument,” said Shiv Sena UBT MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. 

NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had filed the first PIL in 2017 on the issue of alleged corruption and subversion of democracy through illicit and foreign funding of political parties and lack of transparency. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had in April 2019 declined to stay the electoral bond scheme and in January 2020 refused to grant interim stay on the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. 

(With PTI inputs) 

Also read: Adani Hindenburg Case: Supreme Court again defers hearing; Adani stocks trade mixed

Also read: Delhi excise policy case: Supreme Court denies bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia