Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, holding it violated voters' right to information. What was the Court's primary reasoning?
- Electoral Bonds were too expensive for small donors
- Anonymous political funding violates voters' right to know who funds political parties, implicit in Article 19(1)(a)
- Electoral Bonds favored national parties over regional parties
- The scheme was not authorized by any law
Answer: Anonymous political funding violates voters' right to know who funds political parties, implicit in Article 19(1)(a)
Electoral Bonds judgment reasoning: (a) ADR v. Union of India (2024): 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Electoral Bonds Scheme and amended R.P. Act/IT Act provisions enabling anonymous donations, (b) Primary reasoning: (i) Voters' right to information: Anonymous funding violates voters' right to know who funds political parties, implicit in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), (ii) Electoral integrity: Anonymous funding enables quid pro quo corruption, undermines free/fair elections, (iii) Less restrictive alternatives: Transparency can be achieved through threshold-based disclosure (e.g., disclose donations above ₹20,000) without complete anonymity, (c) Applications: (i) Disclosure directive: ECI directed to disclose all Electoral Bond details (donor, amount, recipient party, date) on website, (ii) Political funding reform: Judgment prompts debate on threshold-based disclosure, real-time reporting, safeguards for small donors, (iii) Democratic accountability: Enhanced transparency enables voters to make informed choices based on party funding patterns, (d) Challenges: (i) Implementation: Ensuring timely, complete disclosure of historical Electoral Bond data, (ii) Balance: Protecting donor privacy for small contributions while ensuring transparency for large donations, (iii) Political consensus: Building agreement on post-judgment political funding framework, (e) Illustrates judicial protection of electoral integrity: Court balances political funding needs with voters' right to information; transparency as foundation for informed democratic participation.