Attorney General of India K K Venugopal told the court Thursday that “voters don’t need to know where money of political parties come from”. What is the scheme, what are main objections of the critics, and the government’s claims?
The petitioners have stated that the Electoral Bonds Scheme has “opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate donations to political parties and anonymous financing by Indian as well as foreign companies which can have serious repercussions on the Indian democracy”.
The government has been defending the scheme on the ground that it limits the use of cash in political funding, thus bringing more transparency, and provides a shield to donors by granting them anonymity.
Election Commission of India submitted to the court that electoral bonds had legalised the anonymity of political donors and the parties receiving contributions. It said the right to vote meant the right to make an informed choice. Knowing the candidate was only “half the exercise.” The voters should also know the source of funding of parties who put up these candidates. “It is more important to know the principal than the agent,” its counsel and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted.
To this, Mr. Venugopal countered on Thursday: “Their contention is that voters have a right to know. Right to know what? Voters do not need to know where money of political parties comes from.”
The petitioners has raised the following objections on Electoral Bond Scheme:
Where the legal industry reads first.
Enjoyed this article? Get the biggest legal industry updates, deals, appointments, insights and expert interviews in your inbox, free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.From Legal Desire
Is your firm the one being cited, or the one being skipped?
We ran the test. On several everyday legal questions, software companies are answering and law firms are not. We help firms fix that, and we build the technology behind the practice.
