sadalawpublications.com

Election Commission of India

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism?

Trending Today One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Madras High Court Rules False Sexual Allegations as Mental Cruelty, Grants Divorce to Husband President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Bokaro Launches Mobile Land Court to Deliver Justice in Rural Jharkhand Supreme Court Questions Centre on Surrogacy Rules 2023: Challenge Highlights Reproductive Rights and Constitutional Concerns Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use of “TATA” Trademark in Domain Names Bombay High Court Halts BMC Demolition Over Alleged Illegal Structures Amid Procedural Dispute Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu’s Response on Facial Recognition in Policing Amid Privacy Concerns Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu Govt’s Response on PIL Challenging Facial Recognition in Policing Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Constitutional Right, Even for Third Child One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? 16 June 2025 REHA BHARGAV Discover the key arguments for and against the proposed One Nation, One Election policy in India. Is it a path to constitutional reform or a risk to democratic diversity? Explore its implications, challenges, and viable alternatives in this insightful analysis. Introduction: Understanding the One Nation, One Election Concept India, the world’s largest democracy, continues to innovate its electoral systems. A significant proposal in recent years is One Nation, One Election — a model where elections for both the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies are conducted simultaneously. While the idea promises financial efficiency and administrative ease, it also poses serious questions about India’s federal integrity and democratic diversity. Is this a step toward much-needed constitutional reform or a disruption of the democratic ethos? Historical Background: When Simultaneous Elections Were a Reality India conducted synchronized elections in 1951–52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this cycle was disrupted in the late 1960s due to premature dissolutions of state assemblies and the Lok Sabha, particularly during political crises in 1968–69 and 1970. Since then, election cycles have fragmented, leading to year-round polling and continuous deployment of administrative and security resources. The One Nation, One Election proposal aims to restore and modernize this earlier model for today’s complex political environment. Why the Idea Is Gaining Momentum The Indian government has revived interest in simultaneous elections, even appointing a high-level committee to study its feasibility. Some of the major reasons for this renewed push include: Continuous election cycles keeping political parties in perpetual campaign mode. Frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct disrupting governance. Rising financial and administrative costs of conducting separate elections. In this context, One Nation, One Election is seen as a strategy for efficient governance, fiscal discipline, and political stability. Vision Behind One Nation, One Election The core vision of this reform includes:  Reducing Election CostsSimultaneous polls would significantly reduce financial strain on the Election Commission of India and public resources.  Minimizing Governance DisruptionFewer elections mean fewer interruptions due to the Model Code of Conduct, enabling smoother execution of public policies.  Ensuring Political StabilityAligned election cycles could reduce mid-term collapses and encourage long-term governance.  Boosting Voter EngagementA unified election event may lead to higher voter turnout and public awareness.  Fostering National IntegrationSynchronizing elections may align central and state agendas, reinforcing national unity. Arguments in Favour: A Move Toward Constitutional Reform  Cost EfficiencyMultiple elections throughout the year drain public funds. Synchronization could drastically lower these expenses.  Administrative ConvenienceFewer deployments of personnel and security forces ease the burden on infrastructure.  Reduced Governance DisruptionsFewer election-related pauses mean continuous policy implementation.  Long-Term Policy FocusGovernments can focus more on governance rather than campaigning.  Enhanced Voter TurnoutA consolidated election day could improve voter participation.  Curbing PopulismReduced election frequency may push parties toward long-term reforms instead of short-term populism.  Strengthening National CoherenceA unified election process might encourage a more cohesive national political narrative. Challenges and Criticisms: Risk of Electoral Disruption  Federal ImbalanceStates may lose control over their individual electoral timelines, weakening federalism.  Mid-Term CollapsesDissolutions of assemblies mid-term would break the cycle, complicating continuity.  National vs Regional IssuesSimultaneous elections could dilute local issues, favoring national narratives.  Voter OverloadToo many choices at once may confuse voters and reduce focus on individual candidates.  Electoral InequalityRegional or smaller parties may struggle to compete with national parties.  Logistical OverstretchManaging simultaneous polls across India’s vast and diverse landscape is a colossal administrative challenge.  Democratic DilutionMega-elections might diminish community-level engagement and local issues. Legal and Practical Challenges To implement One Nation, One Election, significant amendments to the Constitution of India—including Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174—are necessary. These require not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also ratification by at least half the state legislatures. Practical complications include: Managing early dissolutions of assemblies or Parliament. The risk of imposing President’s Rule to maintain synchronization. Enormous logistical coordination required by the Election Commission. Political consensus, especially among regional parties concerned about autonomy, remains a major hurdle. Alternatives to One Nation, One Election  Clustered ElectionsGroup states with similar election cycles for staggered synchronization.  Fixed Election DatesCreate a structured calendar to reduce unpredictability while maintaining autonomy.  Staggered Election WindowsHold elections within fixed time frames instead of exact dates.  Election Infrastructure UpgradesEnhance the capabilities of the Election Commission for efficient multi-election management.  Political ReformsStrengthen anti-defection laws to prevent early dissolutions.  Phased ImplementationStart by synchronizing a few states and expand gradually based on results. Conclusion: Reform or Risk? The proposal for One Nation, One Election presents a double-edged sword. It offers efficiency, cost reduction, and focused governance, yet threatens federal autonomy and electoral diversity. Legal amendments, logistical coordination, and political consensus are essential for any successful implementation. Instead of a hasty overhaul, a gradual, inclusive approach with interim reforms—like clustered elections and fixed dates—may better serve India’s democratic and federal structure. Ultimately, reforms must enhance, not compromise, the democratic fabric of the nation. References: – Election Commission of India – Indian Constitution – PRS Legislative Research – India Today – Firstpost – AAP – ORF – News18 – iPleaders – The Hindu – Times of India Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Read More »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained

Trending Today Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court reshaped the appointment process for the Election Commission of India in the landmark Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case (2023). Learn what this means for Indian democracy, electoral transparency, and constitutional law. Introduction: Reassessing the Independence of the Election Commission of India The Election Commission of India (ECI) is crucial to ensuring free and fair elections, as mandated by Article 324 of the Constitution of India. However, the method of appointing Election Commissioners lacked statutory clarity—until the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case. Background of the Case What Prompted the Legal Challenge? In January 2015, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Anoop Baranwal, arguing that the appointment process—where the President of India acts on the advice of the Prime Minister—was unconstitutional. This PIL was consolidated with related petitions by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, advocating a more transparent, independent selection process for the ECI. Legal Issues Raised Key Constitutional Questions Does the current method of appointing Election Commissioners violate the Right to Equality under Article 14? Does it compromise the Right to Free and Fair Elections as a basic feature of the Constitution? Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Standpoint Absence of a statutory framework violates constitutional principles. Existing process allows executive dominance, undermining electoral independence. Recommended a selection committee including the Prime Minister of India, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India. Respondent’s (Union of India) View Argued under the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Emphasized that the judiciary must not override legislative or executive authority. Claimed the ECI has maintained its independence under the current appointment process. Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Decision (March 2, 2023) The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivered a transformative judgment: Directed the formation of a selection committee with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India to recommend ECI appointments until Parliament passes a law. Called for a dedicated Secretariat for the ECI, funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. Emphasized the need for transparency, independence, and institutional accountability. The case is reported as 2023 INSC 190. Impact on Indian Democracy Why This Judgment Matters This decision is a pivotal moment in ensuring the autonomy of the Election Commission. It supports the constitutional framework that democratic institutions must remain independent from executive overreach. Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, had previously recommended: Budgetary independence through the Consolidated Fund of India. Establishing a secretariat modeled on that of the Supreme Court of India and Parliament. Conclusion: Strengthening Electoral Integrity in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Anoop Baranwal case marks a historic step in reinforcing democratic values. It lays the foundation for a more transparent and balanced electoral system and boosts public trust in democratic institutions. The judgment stands as a major reform in constitutional law in India and ensures that electoral integrity is upheld through a genuinely independent Election Commission. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Read More »

Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections

Trending Today Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections MAHI SINHA 07 May 2025 Shiv Sena (UBT) urges the Supreme Court of India to urgently hear its challenge over the iconic ‘bow and arrow’ election symbol awarded to the Eknath Shinde faction ahead of Maharashtra’s local body polls. Shiv Sena (UBT) Seeks Urgent Supreme Court Hearing on Election Symbol Dispute As the upcoming Maharashtra local body elections draw near, the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)—commonly known as Shiv Sena (UBT)—has requested the Supreme Court of India to expedite its hearing on the ongoing electoral symbol dispute. Background of the Symbol Dispute: Shiv Sena vs. Shinde Faction In the ongoing case of Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors., the Election Commission of India officially recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the legitimate Shiv Sena and allocated the iconic bow and arrow election symbol to them. In response, the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction has approached the apex court to challenge this decision. Kapil Sibal Pushes for Swift Judicial Review Representing Shiv Sena (UBT), senior advocate Kapil Sibal addressed the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, arguing that the urgency of the upcoming elections demands a prompt hearing. “Your lordships have ordered local body elections. Now there’s urgency,” Sibal emphasized in court. 2023 Constitutional Bench Ruling as Legal Basis Sibal grounded his argument in the Supreme Court’s 2023 Constitutional Bench judgment, which asserted that legislative majority alone is insufficient to determine the legitimacy of a political party. He claimed that the Election Commission had incorrectly relied solely on parliamentary strength when awarding the symbol to the Shinde faction. Supreme Court Responds with Caution Ahead of Holidays Justice Surya Kant noted that it might not be feasible to list the case before the court’s holiday recess. Sibal reiterated his reliance on the Constitution Bench’s ruling, pressing for urgency in the matter. Justice Kant questioned the necessity of expedited proceedings, asking why the Shiv Sena (UBT) couldn’t contest with their currently allotted symbol. “Each of you has a symbol,” he remarked. Sibal countered, “But he has the original symbol of Shiv Sena.” Symbolism and Precedents: Drawing from the NCP Case Sibal argued that interim relief was granted in a similar situation involving the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), implying the same could be applied here. However, Justice Kant reminded the court that the NCP case involved specific conditions and that the local body electorate may not prioritize symbols as significantly as expected. Supreme Court May Consider Listing Case During Vacation Concluding the hearing, Justice Kant responded to Sibal’s call for urgency: “I haven’t looked at it from that viewpoint… We’ll do our best to learn. We can put it on vacation if it’s that urgent.” Conclusion: Awaiting Clarity Ahead of Crucial Elections As Maharashtra gears up for its critical local body elections, the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s plea highlights ongoing tensions over party identity and electoral legitimacy. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could set a significant precedent not just for this case, but for future disputes involving party symbols and internal splits. Until then, both factions will have to navigate the political landscape with their current positions—while the final verdict remains pending.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India 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 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »

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 »