15 Feb 2024 12:25 PM GMT
In his separate but concurring judgment in the Electoral Bonds case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna mentioned certain important data regarding contributions through electoral bonds.
Based on the data from the website of the Election Commission of India and the details supplied by the petitioners, the judgment mentioned the following table regarding the contributions received by political parties :
From these figures, Justice Khanna said that the majority of contributions went to parties which are ruling parties in the Centre and the States.
94% of contributions came from the Electoral Bonds of Rs 1 crore denomination
Justice Khanna further discussed the data which showed that the lions share of the contributions came from corporate sources. About 94% of the contributions came from electoral bonds of Rs 1 crore denomination. This indicated the quantum of corporate donations.
The figures also showed that Bonds' income between the years 2018-19 to 2021-22 constitutes 58% of the total income of the national political parties.
Justice Khanna cited these figures while discussing whether the confidentiality clause in the electoral bonds scheme satisfied the proportionality test. Since most of the contributions are going to the ruling parties, the concerns expressed about political retributions if the donors' identities are disclosed were found to be misplaced. Also, the majority of the contributors through the electoral bonds route are corporate houses. Justice Khanna opined that "the claim of privacy by a corporate or a company, especially a public limited company would be on very limited grounds, restricted possibly to protect the privacy of the individuals and persons responsible for conducting the business and commerce of the company."
"It will be rather difficult for a public (or even a private) limited company to claim a violation of privacy as its affairs have to be open to the shareholders and the public who are interacting with the body corporate/company. This principle would be equally, with some deference, apply to private limited companies, partnerships and sole proprietorships," he wrote.
"Based on the analysis of the data currently available to us, along with our previous observation asserting that voters' right to know supersedes anonymity in political party funding, I arrive at the conclusion that the Scheme fails to meet the balancing prong of the proportionality test," Justice Khanna stated.
Voter's right to know prevails
Justice Khanna observed that the Electoral Bonds Scheme falls foul and negates and overwhelmingly disavows and annuls the voters' right in an electoral process as neither the right of privacy nor the purpose of incentivising donations to political parties through banking channels, justify the infringement of the right to voters.
"The voters right to know and access to information is far too important in a democratic set-up so as to curtail and deny 'essential' information on the pretext of privacy and the desire to check the flow of unaccounted for money to the political parties. While secret ballots are integral to fostering free and fair elections, transparency—not secrecy—in funding of political parties is a prerequisite for free and fair elections. The confidentiality of the voting booth does not extend to the anonymity in contributions to political parties," he said.
He also observed that the suggestion made by the petitioners that corporate funds should be accumulated and the corpus equitably distributed amongst national and regional parties.
Concurring with the CJI, Justice Khanna also held that the Electoral Bonds scheme and the amendments to the Representation of the Peoples Act, the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act are unconstitutional.
Detailed story about the judgment can be read here.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment