[Electoral Bonds] Methodology for donation most transparent, impossible to get black money: Central government to Supreme Court

The Central government on Friday told the Supreme Court that electoral bonds scheme floated it by it for funding political parties, is most transparent [Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India and ors]..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government told a bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna that there is no scope for black money in the electoral bonds scheme. "Methodology of donation is so transparent, it is impossible to get black money..It is most transparent and to say it strikes at democracy is wrong," the SG contended.He was responding to an argument made by advocate Prashant Bhushan that the case involves issues that strike at the root of democracy. "These issues strike at the root of our democracy. We have challenged amendments allowing electoral bonds, unlimited donations even by subsidiaries and retrospective changes to Foreign Contribution Regulation Act," Bhushan said..Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal also appearing for the petitioners argued that the matter might have to be heard by a larger in view of the importance of the issues raised. The Court said that it will first hear on reference to larger bench."First we will hear on that," said Justice Gavai. The bench then asked the parties when it should list the case.Attorney General R Venkataramani said that there is no pressing urgency and requested the Court to list it in January 2023. Bhushan, Sibal and Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge pointed out that elections to Gujarat would be announced today and hearing in January would mean more sale of bonds. The SG pointed out that there is a Constitution Bench already slated to sit in November. The Court eventually proceeded to list the case on December 6. .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, which are in multiple denominations, are issued specifically for the purpose of contribution of funds to political parties in its existing scheme in the country.Electoral bonds were introduced through the Finance Act, 2017, which in turn amended three other statutes - the RBI Act, the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act - for enabling introduction of such bonds.The Finance Act was passed as a money bill.The petition by two NGOs – the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause, are among the pleas pending before the top court. The petitions state that the money bill route was adopted to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where the ruling BJP government does not have a majority.The plea by ADR has assailed five major amendments, which have been brought about through the Finance Act, 2017, and the Finance Act, 2016.Section 31, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 through Part III, Section 135 of the Finance Act, 2017,Section 29C, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 through Part – IV, Section 137 of the Finance Act, 2017Section 13A, the Income Tax Act, 1961 through Chapter III, Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2017 and inSection 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 through Part-XII, Section 154, the Finance Act, 2017.Section 2 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA) through Finance Act, 2016.The petitioners have also submitted that the consequence of the amendments was that annual contribution reports of political parties to be furnished to the Election Commission of India need not mention names and addresses of those contributing by way of electoral bonds, thereby killing transparency in political funding.The removal of the cap on donations by the amendment to the Companies Act, 2013, and the amendments made to Section 236 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, have also been challenged as opening the avenues of foreign contribution to Indian political parties.The top court had in March 2021 dismissed an application seeking a stay on the sale of Electoral Bonds..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]