Lyza Christopher, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be) University
ABSTRACT
The 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme resulted in a fractious relationship between the right to privacy of political candidates and the right to information of the public. Questions were raised as to which fundamental right ought to prevail over the other. This paper seeks to answer these questions against with the necessary background required to address them. It further delves into the larger debate of whether political parties as associations can claim privacy at all, or if it is time that they be made subject to disclosure.
The paper begins a description of the provisions of the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 and the Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017 that enabled its integration into the regime. The writ petitions raised against the Scheme before the Supreme Court are next dissected, and, having established the modern scenario of Indian party funding, the paper delves into the right to privacy and information under the Scheme and how the Scheme purported to protect these. Privacy and accountability in the context of political parties are then deliberated, followed by the reasoning behind the demands for disclosure of contributions received and the identities of donors, and why the right to information ultimately takes precedence over privacy. A jurisprudential view of ‘choice’ in terms of privacy and information is put forth, along with the importance of the right to know for the functioning of an open democracy. The paper concludes with certain considerations that policymakers and other authorities ought to rely upon while formulating a party funding regime, and how these considerations can better shape the regime so created.
