Srinagar, Feb 19 (KNS): Senior Supreme Court lawyer Ashok Bhan Monday said that Supreme Court’s judgment on electoral bonds was a “landmark”. He said the Supreme Court’s constitution bench judgment which reintroduces caps on corporate donations and emphasizes transparency in political funding will be a turning point in India democracy.

He said in a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India, headed by a constitutional bench of five eminent judges headed by the Chief Justice of India, has unanimously overturned the Centre’s electoral bond scheme. The scheme, which allowed anonymous political donations, was ruled unconstitutional by the court as it violated the right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
He also said the system of electoral bonds, which had been in place for seven years, allowed individuals and companies to support political parties without disclosing their identity or limiting donations. This lack of transparency raised concerns from opposition parties and civil society groups, who argued that it compromised the public's right to know the sources of political funding.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel

Notably Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, speaking on behalf of the court, highlighted the significance of the judgment by emphasizing how political donations can have an undue influence on policy making. The court recognized the detrimental impact of an "additional layer of opacity" in the electoral process, especially when substantial sums of money flow into political coffers from undisclosed sources.

Bhan said the judgment comes at the right time to preserve the purity of elections and democracy itself is a part of basic structure of the Constitution. By cancelling the electoral bonds system, the court aims to curb political mischief and restore accountability in the election funding process.

The electoral bonds system allowed individuals and companies to buy bonds from the State Bank of India and donate them to political parties, concealing their identity. Despite the government's argument that this mechanism curbed the influence of "black money'," critics claimed that it perpetuated opacity and facilitated potential quid pro quo arrangements. (KNS)