SC junks plea seeking ban on sale of electoral bonds

New Delhi, March 26 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Friday junked the allegations that the Electoral Bonds Scheme was shrouded in anonymity, leading to further anonymity in the financing of political parties by corporate houses, both in India and abroad.

The top court dismissed the pleas filed by two NGOs -- Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause -- seeking ban on sale of electoral bonds ahead of the Assembly elections in five states/UT.

A bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, and justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian noted that the main attack of advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGOs, against the Electoral Bonds Scheme was that it allowed the donors of political parties to maintain anonymity which is not healthy for a democracy.

In response, the bench said: "We do not know at this stage as to how far the allegation that under the Scheme, there would be complete anonymity in the financing of political parties by corporate houses, both in India and abroad, is sustainable."

The bench noted that if the purchase of the bonds as well as their encashment could happen only through banking channels and if purchase of bonds is allowed only to customers who fulfill the KYC norms, the information about the purchaser will certainly be available with the SBI, which alone is authorised to issue and encash the bonds as per the Scheme.

"Moreover, any expenditure incurred by anyone in purchasing the bonds through banking channels will have to be accounted as an expenditure in his books of accounts," noted the bench.

Under Clause 8(1) of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, the bonds under the Scheme are made available for purchase for a period of 10 days each in the months of January, April, July and October.

Bhushan also cited various letters written by the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Election Commission to contend that they had serious reservations about the Scheme.

"It is true, as seen from the correspondence, that RBI has had some reservations. But it is not correct to say that the RBI and the Election Commission of India opposed the Electoral Bond Scheme itself," observed the bench.

The top court also added that it is also not correct to say that the RBI was opposed to the Scheme in principle. RBI's objection was to the issue of bonds in scrip form rather than in demat form, it said.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal submitted that the Scheme was intended to prevent unaccounted money having a sway in the elections and that under the scheme the donors are obliged to operate only through banking channels.

"This, according to the learned Attorney General, curbed the menace of black money playing a huge part in the elections. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the Election Commission of India, supported the Scheme," noted the bench.

The bench said the purchase as well as encashment of the bonds, happening only through banking channels, is always reflected in documents that eventually come to the public domain.

"All that is required is a little more effort to cull out such information from both sides (purchaser of bond and political party) and do some match the following," added the bench.

Dismissing the pleas, the top court said: "That they (bonds) had been so released in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 without any impediment; and that certain safeguards have already been provided by this Court in its interim order dated April 4, 2019, we do not see any justification for the grant of stay at this stage."

Source: IANS