The Supreme Court of India will hear a petition challenging the government’s electoral bonds scheme, reigniting the debate on transparency in political funding and donor disclosure.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India will on Monday hear a new petition challenging the government’s electoral bonds scheme.
Filed by a coalition of civil society groups and former bureaucrats, the plea demands that political parties disclose donor details to promote accountability and prevent anonymous corporate influence in elections.

Scene Outside the Supreme Court

On Friday morning, lawyers and activists gathered on the lawns of the Supreme Court, holding placards reading “Democracy Needs Transparency” and “End Anonymous Funding.”
The case is listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.V. Nagarathna.

This hearing comes less than two years after the court struck down parts of the scheme — a ruling the government sought to bypass via legislative amendments in early 2025.

Background: The Electoral Bonds Scheme

Introduced in 2018, electoral bonds allow individuals and companies to donate to political parties through banking channels without publicly revealing their identities.
While the government claims the system curbs black money, critics argue it enables opaque funding and shields donors from scrutiny.

In 2024, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India to release donor and recipient data, revealing a concentration of funding towards ruling parties.
In March 2025, Parliament amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to restore donor anonymity citing “national security and privacy” — sparking protests by opposition parties and transparency advocates.

Petitioners’ Core Arguments

The petitioners contend that the amended scheme violates democratic principles:

1. Right to Information – Citizens must know who funds political parties that seek to govern.

2. Threat to Electoral Equality – Large corporate donations without disclosure tilt the field towards wealthier parties.

3. Risk of Policy Capture – Secret funding could influence laws to benefit select donors.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, stated:

“Political finance without transparency breeds corruption. The amendments are unconstitutional and must be struck down.”

Government’s Expected Defence

The Union government is likely to argue that the scheme eliminates cash-based donations and ensures traceable bank transactions.
Officials suggest donor privacy prevents “political retribution” against corporate contributors.
BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla defended the system:

“We have brought clean money into politics through banking channels. Opposition outrage is selective.”

Opposition’s Reaction

• Indian National Congress leader Jairam Ramesh hailed the hearing as “a step towards saving Indian democracy from becoming a corporate auction.”

• Aam Aadmi Party and All India Trinamool Congress also welcomed the move.

• Regional parties like the Naga People’s Front and Asom Gana Parishad expressed mixed views, citing funding concerns for smaller outfits.

Expert Analysis

• Dr. R.K. Sanjoy (Imphal-based commentator): “In smaller states, modest donations can decide contests. Opaque funding benefits nationally connected parties.”

• Prof. Meera Sood (election law expert): “The court will assess if donor privacy outweighs citizens’ right to know — a test of proportionality in constitutional law.”

Public Opinion

• Rajesh Jain (trader, Guwahati’s Panbazar): “If the money comes via banks, it’s legal — anonymity doesn’t matter.”

• Nabanita Saikia (college student): “We vote based on trust. Without knowing fund sources, how can we trust policies?”

Looking Ahead

The bench may fast-track proceedings, given the implications for upcoming state elections in Bihar, Maharashtra, and Assam.
A verdict could reshape India’s political funding landscape, especially in regions where close contests are common.

Conclusion

This hearing is more than a legal dispute — it is a constitutional test of transparency in democracy. With political power and corporate interests at stake, the judgment could be among the most influential decisions ahead of the 2029 general elections.