Citizens don’t have fundamental right to know about sources of political funding: Attorney General to SC

New Delhi [India]: Attorney-General for India, R Venkataramani while defending the validity of Electoral Bonds, which facilitate anonymous donations to political parties, has told the Supreme Court that citizens do not have the fundamental right to be informed about the sources of political funding.

Attorney General Venkataramani, in a four-page written submission, emphasised that the Electoral Bonds scheme extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor.

AG Venkataramani submitted that the Electoral Bonds scheme is “within the scope of Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” which allows the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights.

The Attorney General on behalf of the Union government countered arguments raised by the petitioners for transparency in the funding of political parties, saying such a “right to know for the general health of democracy” would be too overbroad.

“The right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise. Democracy is a wide concept and comprehends many aspects. The right to know for the general health of democracy will be too over-broad,” said AG said in his written submissions.

On October 16, the Supreme Court referred to a five-judge Constitution bench a batch of pleas challenging the government’s Electoral Bond scheme, which allows for anonymous funding to political parties. The apex court had sent the matter for adjudication to the Constitution bench in view of the importance of the issue.

The five-judge bench is scheduled to hear the case on October 31.

Petitioners’ counsel had said the matter is of Constitutional importance and could impact democratic polity in the country and the funding of political parties and demanded that it should be sent to a five-judge Constitution bench.

An Electoral Bond is an instrument in the nature of a promissory note or bearer bond which can be purchased by any individual, company, firm or association of persons, provided the person or body is a citizen of India or incorporated or established in India.

The bonds are issued specifically for the purpose of contribution of funds to political parties.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, had told the top court that the anonymous nature of the funding also promoted corruption as it allowed companies, who had received certain benefits from the government of certain parties, to anonymously donate to those political parties.

He had argued that amendments made via the Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017, both passed as Money Bills, have, through the electoral bonds scheme, “opened the floodgates to unlimited political donations”.

In October last year, the Centre, in an affidavit had said that the methodology of Electoral Bonds scheme is “completely transparent” mode of political funding and that it is impossible to get black money or unaccounted money.

Various petitions are pending before the top court challenging amendments made to different statutes through the Finance Act 2017 and Finance Act 2016 on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties.

The NGOs Association of Democratic Reforms and Common Cause have said that the Finance Bill of 2017, which paved the way for the introduction of the Electoral Bond scheme, was passed as a money bill even though it was not.