Dr. DY Chandrachud

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024.

Trending Today Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024 07 Mar 2025 Table of contents Case Summary Issues in the case Case Analysis Specific Direction Conclusion Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017 Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Date of judgement:- 15th february, 2024 Presiding judges:- DY Chandrachud CJ., Sanjiv Khanna BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ… Case Summary:- The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, holding that anonymous political donations violate the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous verdict with two concurring opinions. The Court ruled that transparency in political funding is crucial for an informed electorate and that the scheme’s anonymity undermines democratic principles by enabling quid pro quo arrangements. The petitioners challenged the scheme’s validity under Article 32, contesting amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017, and its classification as a Money Bill. The Court analyzed the right to information jurisprudence, emphasizing the link between economic and political inequality. It found that financial contributions to political parties significantly impact voters’ decision-making and that anonymity in funding hinders public scrutiny of potential policy influences. Rejecting the government’s argument that the scheme prevents black money in elections, the Court noted that alternative legal mechanisms, such as electronic transfers and Electoral Trusts, provide better transparency. Applying the proportionality test, it ruled that the scheme is not the least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Consequently, the Court directed the immediate cessation of electoral bond issuance, mandated the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose details of past bond transactions to the Election Commission of India (ECI), and instructed the ECI to publish this data on its website. Bonds still within their validity period were ordered to be returned and refunded. Issues in the case:- Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties according to the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to Section 29-C of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 13-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is violative of the right to information guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) in the Constitution. Whether unlimited corporate funding of the political parties as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act violates the principles of free and fair election under Article 14 of the Constitution. Case Analysis:- The Supreme Court examined whether the Right to Information (RTI) under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes access to details about financial contributions made to political parties. In doing so, the Court divided its jurisprudence on RTI into two phases. It emphasized that the RTI is not confined solely to government-related matters or public affairs but extends to information that is crucial for strengthening participatory democracy. Given that political parties play a vital role in the electoral process, as recognized in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, transparency regarding their funding is essential for voters to make informed choices. The Court acknowledged that political equality is a fundamental constitutional principle, ensuring that both the electorate and elected representatives are treated fairly. However, despite constitutional guarantees, political inequality persists, largely due to economic disparities. Those with greater financial resources often have a disproportionate influence over political decisions, thereby undermining democratic fairness. The Court underscored the need to assess the significance of financial transparency in political funding, particularly in light of India’s legal framework governing political party finances. A major concern highlighted was the potential for financial contributions to create quid pro quo arrangements, where monetary support to a political party translates into favorable policy changes or licensing benefits for the donor. This close connection between financial power and political decision-making raises concerns about undue influence on governance. Voter access to information regarding political donations is crucial for evaluating whether policymaking is being swayed by financial contributions. The Union of India (UOI) contended that political parties receiving contributions through electoral bonds remained unaware of donor identities, as the bonds did not display names and banks were prohibited from disclosing this information. The Court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that the scheme was not foolproof. It identified several loopholes that allowed political parties to discern the identities of donors, thereby negating the claim of anonymity. Ultimately, the Court ruled that information regarding political funding is indispensable for voters to exercise their franchise effectively. By anonymizing political donations, the electoral bond scheme infringed upon voters’ right to information, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a). The Court applied the proportionality test to determine whether this infringement could be justified. Additionally, the Court examined whether restricting voter access to financial contributions was justified in the interest of curbing black money in elections. Applying the proportionality standard, it assessed whether the electoral bond scheme was the least restrictive means to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that the scheme failed this test, as alternative legal mechanisms such as contributions through cheques, bank drafts, and electronic transfers already existed to address concerns related to

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Read More »

The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria —- Supreme court on 7th November, 2024 04 Mar 2025 Table of contents Introduction Facts Issue involved CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634 of 2013 Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors ………. Appellant (s) v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors ……… Respondent (s) Date of judement : 7th November, 2024 Presiding Judges :- DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, JJ Introduction: In a matter posing a legal question of whether the criteria for appointment to a public post could be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has started, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench held the following: Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for the applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the select list cannot be altered midway, unless explicitly allowed by the prevailing rules or the original advertisement, provided it does not contradict those rules; If such change is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, the change has to meet the standard of Articles 14 of the Constitution and must satisfy the test of non —arbitrariness; Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512. (deals with right to be placed in the select list), is good law and not in conflict with State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (deals with the right to be appointed from the select list) into consideration. These cases dealt with altogether different issues. Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise an appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure is transparent non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility, however, where the rules are silent, the administrative instructions can fill in the gaps. Placement in the select list does not give a candidate an indefeasible right to employment; the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons can chose to not fill up the vacancies, however, if vacancies exist the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration. Facts: The present case is concerned with the recruitment process for filling thirteen translator posts in the Rajasthan High Court, which required candidates to first appear for a written exam, followed by a personal interview. Twenty-one candidates participated in the process, but only three were declared successful by the High Court (administrative side). It was later revealed that the Chief Justice of the High Court had imposed a 75 per cent marks criterion for selection, which had not been mentioned in the original recruitment notification. This new criterion was applied retroactively, resulting in the selection of only three candidates and the exclusion of the remaining ones. In response, three unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition challenging the decision, arguing that the imposition of the 75 per cent cutoff amounted to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played,” which was impermissible. The High Court dismissed their petition in March 2010, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court for relief. In 2023, the three-judge bench acknowledged that applying the K. Manjusree (supra) ruling strictly to the present case would compel the Rajasthan High Court to recruit all thirteen candidates, rather than just three. However, the Bench expressed that such a rigid application, without further scrutiny, might not serve the larger public interest or the goal of creating an efficient administrative framework. To support this view, the Bench referenced the Subash Chander Marwaha case, which dealt with the recruitment of civil judges in Haryana, noting that this ruling had not been considered in the Manjusree case. As a result, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for a conclusive ruling…. Issues Involved:- When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played Whether the decision in K. Manjusree (supra) is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a Statute could be given a go-bye (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end:- The Court reiterated that the process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played:- The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article

The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Read More »

Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Read More »

Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration :Supreme Court on 8th November, 2024 03 Mar 2025 Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 2024 Civil Appeal no. 2286 of 2006 Parties involved : Aligarh Muslim University ……….. Appellant Vs. Naresh Agarwal & Ors“ ………..Respondents Date of judgement: 8th november 2024 President Judges:- Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma Facts and judgement :- In an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s Order in Naresh Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2005 whereby, Aligarh Muslim University’s (‘AMU’) action of 50 percent seat reservation in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates by claiming it to be a minority institution, was struck down and held that AMU cannot have an exclusive reservation because it is not a minority institution, the Seven-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. in 4: 3 overruled the Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Issues: Whether an educational institution must be both established and administered by a linguistic or religious minority to secure the guarantee under Article 30? What are the criteria to be satisfied for the ‘establishment’ of a minority institution? Whether Article 30(1) envisages an institution which is established by a minority with participation from members of other communities; Whether a minority educational institution which is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 soon after its establishment loses its status as a minority educational institution by virtue of such registration; and Whether the decision of this Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 and the amendment of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act 2005 in 2010 have a bearing on the question formulated above and if so, in what manner…. Brief Undertanding about Amu through the time line in this case 1877- Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Founded the Muhammadan Anglo- orientation college (MAO Colle) at aligarh The britishers imperial legislative council enacted the aligarh muslim university Act (AMU Act) incorporating AMU as a university Indian independence Indian constitution Article 30 A constitution bench (5 judge) in which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Parliament enacted the aligarh muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981. This Amendment chenged the AMU Act and changed the definition of the word “University” as an institution “established by the muslims of India, etc. Note: the parliament tried to rectify the mistakes becoz of which AMU lost the minority university status. The AMU reserved 50% seats in postgraduate medical courses for muslim andidates by claaming it to be a minority institution. This bill was challedged in Dr. Naresh Agarwal v Union of India . The Allahabad High Court struch down the reservation policy and held that the AMU couldnot have an exclusive reservation because it was not a minority institution acoording to S. Azeez Basha. A three judges bench heard the AMU’S appeal and referred the decision in S. Azeez Basha for reconsideration by a seven – judge bench. Decision- The Suprme court by a 4:3 majority overruled Azeezz Basha. The majority held that merely because an institution is created by a statute does not strip it of minority status. The majority also held that Article 30(1) protectes institutes established before the constitution came into force in 1950. The court laid criteria to determine when an institution is a minority institution benefitting from Article 30(1) protection. The Court further laid down the factors which must be used to determine if a minority ‘established’ an educational institution: The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and The administrative set up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community. The Court overruled the view taken in Azeez Basha (supra) that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute. 4 Comments ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU – sadalawpublications.comFebruary 27, 2025 at 8:19 am | Edit […] law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v.

Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024.

The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria

Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles

Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info