“Information about funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting,” Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed right at the outset, emphasising the importance of open governance. Authoring an opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Gavai, Pardiwala, and Misra, the chief justice crucially held that the electoral bonds scheme violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution’
“At a primary level, political contributions give a seat at the table to contributors, i.e., it enhances access to legislators.
This access also translates to influence over policymaking. There is also a legitimate possibility that financial contributions to a political party would lead to quid pro quo arrangement because of the close nexus between money and politics.
The electoral bond scheme and the impugned provisions to the extent that they infringe upon the right to information of the voter.
A five-judge constitutional bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, had earlier proposed exploring alternative systems for the funding of political parties while the flaws of the current system are ironed out.
The financial scheme was launched in 2018, where electoral bonds were used as instruments that can be purchased by individuals or companies from banks to present to a political party, which can in turn redeem the same for funds and donations.
The electoral bonds scheme was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency to political funding.
