The apex court had, in April 2019 declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme and said it will accord an in-depth hearing on the pleas as the Centre and the EC had raised "weighty issues" that had "tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country".
The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Election Commission that it should continue maintaining records of the money received by the political parties through electoral bonds since its 2019 interim order, for disclosure of all details to the poll panel in a sealed cover was not restricted to a time period.
A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked the EC counsel Amit Sharma if he was having the details of data submitted pursuant to the interim order.
The counsel said they only have the sealed cover that was submitted in 2019.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Election Commission that it should continue maintaining records of the money received by the political parties through electoral bonds since its 2019 interim order, for disclosure of all details to the poll panel in a sealed cover was not restricted to a time period.
A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked the EC counsel Amit Sharma if he was having the details of data submitted pursuant to the interim order.
The counsel said they only have the sealed cover that was submitted in 2019.
The bench asked the counsel to keep it, as the court at an appropriate time would like to have a look at it.
The counsel clarified that this is pertaining to the 2019 election and the interim order was passed by the apex court, and “pertaining to that data is with us”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, NGO Association for Democratic Reforms in the case, said it was a continuing interim order. The apex court clarified that the interim order's direction to gather that data continues.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra told the EC's counsel, “this was not confined to the 2019 election. The mandate is that you must continue to maintain the data”.
Initiating the arguments, Bhushan explained the electoral bond scheme, which hit at the very root of the democracy for being anonymous in its nature. He claimed it allowed even a foreign entity to use shell companies to give donations to political parties. Bhushan also contended the beneficiaries of such a scheme was only the ruling party at the Centre and the States.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for one of the petitioners, claimed the funding through electoral bonds is not restricted to just elections or electoral process, as there are no spending rules involved in funding of political parties.
He said in a company, the shareholders put in their money to ensure that the corporation functions within the framework of MoU, and now the power is given for use of money in a way, which is inconsistent with the MoU. He said that the corporate sector isn't the voter, the citizen is the voter.On this, the bench said, "We are not here on the challenge to a law providing corporate donation, that wider issue is not before the court…. and there is an element of quid pro quo the moment you have a corporation as a large public limited company doesn't give it for charity". Sibal said the nomenclature suggested that electoral bonds are meant for the purpose of elections, there is nothing in the scheme which connects the donations made to the participation in the electoral process and it is meant for political parties to be enriched.
Giving an example, Sibal said,"I make a donation of Rs 10 crores to a political party through electoral bonds and the political party can give it to a mainstream media channel and say propagate my ideology or give a present to someone. On this, bench asked, “There is no spending requirement?” Sibal said “None! You can spend this money anywhere you like… You can build your office. You can set up a whole internet network throughout the country. You can use an advertising campaign - show your face 20 times a day….. see the nexus, the corporate sector gives money to the political party. The corporate sector owns a media house. Just look at the nexus. The political party uses the media house. No question asked”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, asked Sibal not to bring such instances. Sibal replied that he is not talking about any instance rather talking about the scheme, and emphasised that the electoral bond scheme should be struck down, as it is arbitrary.The bench asked Sibal so it is money for enriching (political parties), no spending requirement, and no accountability? Sibal said "Yes!"
Sibal further argued that the nature of the scheme protects those who have committed a crime contrary to Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The apex court had, in April 2019 declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme and said it will accord an in-depth hearing on the pleas as the Centre and the EC had raised "weighty issues" that had "tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country".