Transparency Vs Anonymity: A Critical Analysis Of The Electoral Bonds Scheme Judgment (2024)
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 days ago
- 1 min read
Shivam Tiwari, Law Center 2, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
ABSTRACT
Political funding is one of the most important aspects of a democratic system because it directly affects elections, governance, and public policy. In India, the problem of opaque political funding and the use of black money has been a major concern for decades. To address this issue, the Government of India introduced the Electoral Bonds Scheme in 2018 through the Finance Act, 2017. The scheme aimed to formalise political donations by encouraging contributions through banking channels instead of cash transactions.
However, the scheme introduced a controversial feature of donor anonymity, which meant that the identity of donors was not disclosed to the public. While the government argued that this would protect donors from political retaliation and reduce black money, critics pointed out that it undermined transparency and accountability in the democratic process. The lack of public disclosure prevented voters from knowing who was funding political parties, thereby limiting their ability to make informed choices.
The issue was challenged before the Supreme Court of India, which in 2024 declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. The Court held that the scheme violated the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
This paper critically examines the Electoral Bonds Scheme, the constitutional issues involved, and the Supreme Court’s judgment. It argues that transparency is essential for a healthy democracy and that anonymity in political funding cannot be justified when it compromises citizens’ right to know.
Keywords: Electoral Bonds, Political Funding, Transparency, Anonymity, Democracy, Right to Information
