In his rebuttal to arguments on the legality of the electoral bonds scheme, senior counsel Prashant Bhushan informed the Supreme Court that companies’ rights to privacy are individual rights and do not extend to them.
Additionally, he stated that the right of citizens to information cannot be superseded by the privacy argument.
“Right of privacy cannot be extended to companies…even if it is an individual’s right, can individuals claim right to privacy which overrides the right to information?” In response to the Center’s argument pitting citizens’ right to informational privacy against their right to know, Bhushan stated in court.
The Center stuck to its guns, saying the program is a part of a bigger plan to outlaw cash transactions during India’s elections and make sure white money is only utilized for political finance through legitimate banking channels.
In contrast to the Bhushan, who has sought the supreme court to eliminate anonymity because it breaches the basic right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) an of the Constitution, it has also stated that confidentiality is the thread that unites the scheme’s architecture.
“Your lordships can accept my right of informational privacy as against the general right to know,” said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government. You proceed to court if there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure. You cannot, however, violate someone’s privacy just because you are curious.”
Additionally, he informed the court that free and fair elections do not inherently conflict with secrecy. Additionally, it occasionally improves free and fair elections. as it is in this instance.”
He added that by moving donations from cash to bank accounts, the plan improves free and fair elections.
Bhushan countered that the information remains accessible and there is still a possibility of the corporation being victimized, even in light of the Center’s claim that the SBI cannot release information without a court order. He reiterated his earlier claim that only the opposition party is in the dark and that the ruling party is capable of knowing since the government can exert pressure on the SBI to obtain information.
In a letter dated this issue, the SBI Chairman stated that access to the details requires a court order.
Earlier answering the challenge on selective anonymity, SG Mehta said that there is no way by which anyone can access information from the SBI without leaving traceable footprints. He asserted that the Centre cannot know the details of donations made through electoral bonds. He placed a letter signed by the Chairman of SBI on this issue and said the details can’t be accessed without a court order.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal in his rejoinder said that the Electoral Bonds scheme is the most unconstitutional, undemocratic, and unfair scheme which destroys the basic structure of the constitution.
“Free and fair elections are basic structure. It’s not free because industrialists cannot say no and it’s not fair as the ruling party gets the most benefits,” he said. He further asked what public interest is being served by concealing information.
Calling the scheme a way to secure political perpetuity, Sibal said that the government is only protecting itself as it knows who donated.
Advocate Shadan Farsat, representing the CPI-M, questioned, “How will you prevent quid pro quo?” He asserted that open disclosure is the only method of preventing quid pro quo.
Senior lawyer Vijay Hansaria further questioned how the rights of 140 crore citizens could be subordinated to the privacy of hundreds of thousands of corporations.
After hearing arguments for three days straight, the Supreme Court postponed making a decision on the challenges to the electoral bond plan until Thursday. Nonetheless, the Election Commission has been given two weeks’ notice by the court to provide the court with a detailed report on all of the money that political parties received through electoral bonds up until September 30.
A number of arguments have been made by petitioners’ attorneys, including senior advocates Bhushan, Nizam Pasha, Sibal, Hansaria, Sanjay Hegde, and advocate Farasat, against the constitutionality, legality, and threat the Electoral Bond Scheme poses to Indian democracy.
A constitutional bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra concluded hearing the arguments from both sides — Centre and petitioners challenging the scheme — on Thursday.
