Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India: Blog Post Script
The Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India case, decided on 15 February 2024, was a landmark judgment in Indian political history. The Supreme Court of India struck down the Union government’s 2018 Electoral Bonds (EB) Scheme, addressing several critical issues related to transparency and democratic integrity in the country's political funding system.
Key Issues Raised in the Case
1. Is the Electoral Bond Scheme Constitutional?
The first question before the Court was whether the Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced by the Union government in 2018, adhered to the Constitution. The government argued that the scheme aimed to curb black money in elections and bring transparency to political funding. However, the Court found the scheme unconstitutional as it infringed on the voters' right to information, an essential component of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. By allowing anonymous donations, the scheme hid the identities of donors, restricting the public's ability to scrutinize the influence of money on politics.
2. Does the Scheme Violate the Voters’ Right to Information?
A crucial element of democracy is the voters' right to information, which allows citizens to make informed choices. The Electoral Bond Scheme effectively allowed individuals and corporations to donate to political parties anonymously, without any public disclosure. The Court held that this lack of transparency was a clear violation of voters' right to know the source of funds influencing the political process. This ruling was a major step in reaffirming the importance of transparency in electoral funding.
3. Can the Scheme Allow Anonymity with the View to Protect Donors’ Right to Privacy?
The Union government defended the scheme on the grounds that it protected the donors’ right to privacy, an essential aspect of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The government argued that disclosing donor identities could lead to harassment or backlash. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that privacy cannot override the public's need for transparency in electoral funding. The Court ruled that anonymity in political donations, especially on such a large scale, posed significant risks to democratic integrity.
4. Does the Electoral Bond Scheme Threaten the Democratic Process and Free and Fair Elections?
One of the central concerns was whether the Electoral Bond Scheme undermined the democratic process and free and fair elections. By allowing unlimited and anonymous corporate donations, the scheme created an environment where wealthy individuals or corporations could have undue influence over political parties and their policies. The Court concluded that this disproportionate influence of money in politics seriously threatened the free and fair elections principle, a core pillar of any democratic system.
Supreme Court’s Judgment and Impact
In its 15 February 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme and ordered the immediate halt of bond sales. The Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to submit a detailed report to the Election Commission of India (ECI), including information on all electoral bonds purchased from 12 April 2019 to the date of the judgment. The ECI was further instructed to publish these details—such as the names of donors and political parties receiving the funds—on its official website within one week of receiving the report (by 13 March 2024).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India marked a pivotal moment in India's democratic journey. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of transparency, voters’ right to information, and free and fair elections. By striking down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, the Court ensured that political funding would no longer remain shrouded in secrecy, thereby restoring faith in the democratic process.
This detailed breakdown offers an insight into the Court’s reasoning and the broader implications of the case. This decision will undoubtedly impact how political campaigns and funding mechanisms evolve in the future. Stay tuned for more legal insights!
Comments