Government Defends Electoral Bond In Supreme Court, Says Citizens Don't Have The Right To Know Source Of Funds

The Indian government has defended the use of electoral bonds (EB) in political funding, stating that citizens do not have a fundamental right to know the sources of political contributions.

The defence comes in response to a series of public interest litigations (PILs) seeking transparency in political funding and access to details of contributions to political parties.

In a four-page submission, Attorney General R Venkataramani emphasised that the EB scheme maintains the confidentiality of contributors, ensures compliance with tax obligations, and does not infringe upon existing rights, as reported by Hindustan Times.

The case is scheduled to be heard by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and will commence on 31 October.

The government argued that the EB scheme does not violate any existing rights and is not contrary to any rights under Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights.

The Attorney General emphasised that the right to information must be specific and cannot extend to every aspect without reasonable restrictions.

The government's submission highlighted that democracy encompasses many facets, and the right to know should be reasonably limited for the overall health of democracy.

The EB scheme, introduced through the Finance Act of 2017 and Finance Act of 2016, enables confidential contributions to political parties through banking channels while ensuring tax compliance.

The government stated that these amendments are not unconstitutional and do not violate fundamental rights.

The case will be heard over two days, starting on 31 October, with the arguments concluding on 1 November.

The government asserted that these matters are complex and should not be subject to simplistic declarations without proper parliamentary debates.

The EB scheme allows bonds to be purchased from the State Bank of India in various denominations, offering complete confidentiality for donors.

The case's outcome holds significant implications for transparency in political funding and its impact on democratic processes in India.