New Delhi, Feb 15 (PTI) “Transparency and not secrecy is the cure and antidote,” the Supreme Court on Thursday said while rejecting the vehement submission of the Centre that donors’ names are kept secret under the electoral bonds scheme as they often “apprehend retribution” from other political parties.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in his separate and concurring verdict in the case, said the retribution, victimisation or retaliation against any donor exercising their choice to donate to a political party is an abuse of law and power which needed to be checked and corrected and it cannot be justification to make the scheme anonymous.
Rejecting the submissions of the Centre on secrecy aspect of donors, Justice Khanna said the arguments suffered on the grounds of inconsistency and coherence as they seek to perpetuate and accept the wrong rather than deal with the malady and correct it.
“The inconsistency is also apparent as the change in law, by giving a cloak of secrecy, leads to severe restriction and curtailment of the collective’s right to information and the right to know, which is a check and counters cases of retribution, victimisation and retaliation. Transparency and not secrecy is the cure and antidote,” he said.
A five-judge bench headed by the CJI and others including Justice Khanna scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, terming it “unconstitutional” and ordering disclosure of the names of the purchasers, value of the bonds and their recipients.
Justice Khanna, in his 74-page judgement, dealt with the submissions of the Centre that donors usually apprehend retribution from other political parties or actors and thus their identities should remain anonymous.
The government had said the bonds uphold right to privacy of donors by providing confidentiality.
It had also said that donating money to one’s preferred political party is a matter of self-expression by the donor and hence revealing the identity invades the “informational privacy of donors protected by the Constitution”.
“Retribution, victimisation or retaliation against any donor exercising their choice to donate to a political party is an abuse of law and power. This has to be checked and corrected. As it is a wrong, the wrong itself cannot be a justification or a purpose,” Justice Khanna said.
“I am of the opinion that retribution, victimisation or retaliation cannot by any stretch be treated as a legitimate aim. This will not satisfy the legitimate purpose prong of the proportionality test,” he said. PTI SJK ABA SJK ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.