The Supreme Court has rejected a series of petitions seeking a review of the Constitutional Court’s verdict striking down the 2018 electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional.
After perusing the review petition, the bench headed by Justice CJI DY Chandrachud said, “There is no obvious error on the face of the record.There is no case that comes up for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The request for review is as follows. Therefore, it was rejected. ”
In a unanimous verdict, the five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that denying voters the right to know the details of political party funding would lead to a dichotomous situation, The electoral bond system was abolished. From those of candidates vying for election.
In a February 15 judgment, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to immediately stop issuing electoral bonds and directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to stop issuing electoral bonds to political parties. The details have been ordered to be published on the official website. Since April 2019, it has been receiving donations through electoral bonds.
CJI Chandrachud’s opinion, which was also concurred by Justices BR Gabai, JB Padliwala and Manoj Misra, added that violation of voters’ right to information for the purpose of curbing black money in the electoral process cannot be justified. Ta.
Furthermore, the electoral bond system “is not the only means of suppressing black money” in campaign financing, and says that it has substantially achieved its purpose, and that the impact on the right to know compared to the impact that electoral bonds have on campaign financing. He said there are other alternatives to minimize the Right to Information.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote a different but concurring verdict. “I also applied the proportionality standard, but with a slightly different variation. The conclusion is the same,” Justice Khanna said.
One of the review petitions states that the Supreme Court “in doing so acts as an appellate authority for Congress, substituting its own wisdom on matters that belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislative and executive branches, “We have abolished the public debt system.” policy”.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition in its entirety, along with the application for listing the review petition in open court.
In August this year, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigation into allegations of campaign financing fraud using electoral bonds under the supervision of a former Supreme Court judge.
A bench presided over by CJI Chandrachud said that unless an FIR has already been registered in respect of the issues raised in the PIL, an SIT cannot be set up to investigate ‘quid pro quo’ and in the normal course of law It added that the allegations raised could be remedied. I plead.
The PIL filed by the NGO Center for Common Cause and Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) says that electoral bond data revealed on a Supreme Court directive shows that a large portion of the bonds appear to have been gifted in return. said. Businesses become political parties to obtain contracts, licenses, and leases from governments and authorities.
It further alleged that electoral bonds were given to political parties by corporations as compensation for favorable policy changes and in close proximity to action by agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Income Tax Department and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). . .
Published October 5, 2024 at 9:36 PM IST
Join a community of over 2 million industry professionals
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Download the ETLegalWorld app
Get real-time updates Save your favorite articles Scan to download apps
Source link
