Source: Indian Express

Introduction

The recent unanimous decision by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, authored by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) has marked a landmark judgment of Indian democracy. The ruling declares the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 unconstitutional. The verdict states the Electoral Bond Scheme violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19 (1)(a) (right to information) of the Indian Constitution.

What were the Major Pointers on Article 14 Discussed in the Case?

• Traditional Approach:
  • Initially, Article 14 was interpreted to guarantee non-discrimination.
  • The courts held that Article 14 does not forbid all classifications but only discriminatory ones.
  • In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court laid down conditions for legislation to satisfy Article 14, emphasizing intelligible differentia and rational relation to the object sought.
• Expansion of Article 14:
  • In E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the court expanded Article 14 by introducing non-arbitrariness as a limiting principle, applicable to executive actions.
  • The court held that arbitrariness negates equality and belongs to the whim of an absolute monarch.
• Manifest Arbitrariness:
  • In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985), the court introduced the concept of manifest arbitrariness concerning subordinate legislation, holding it can be questioned if found manifestly arbitrary.
• Application to Plenary Legislation:
  • There has been divergence regarding the application of arbitrariness to plenary legislation.
  • While some cases like State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal (1995) and Dr. K R Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) allowed challenges to plenary legislation on grounds of arbitrariness, others like State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co. (1996) held that plenary legislation cannot be struck down on such grounds.
• Clarifications by the Court:
  • In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (1998), the court invalidated certain provisions of a statute for being unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.
  • However, it did not strike down the provisions due to the imminent end of the statute's extended period.
  • Similarly, in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), Section 17(2) of an Act was invalidated for being unreasonable and arbitrary.
• Constitutional Infirmity:
  • In Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, the Supreme Court emphasized that a law may not be struck down as arbitrary without a constitutional infirmity.
  • Mere arbitrariness is not sufficient to invalidate legislation; the court must examine if the legislation contravenes any constitutional provision or principle.

What were Court’s Observations on Article 19?

• Violation of Article 19(1)(a):
  • The court has held that the Electoral Bond Scheme is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
  • Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India.
• Right to Vote:
  • The court has recognized the right to vote as both a constitutional and statutory right.
  • It is grounded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The act of voting is considered an expression of opinion by the voter.
• Right to Information:
  • The court highlighted that the citizens' right to know is derived from their right to vote.
    • In order to make informed decisions while voting, citizens require access to relevant information about candidates, parties, and policies.
  • This access to information is important for ensuring free and fair elections and upholding democracy.
• Paramount Importance:
  • The court said that the right to know is paramount for the functioning of democracy.
  • It allows citizens to have a meaningful say in the governance process by enabling them to make informed choices during elections.

What are Other Key Take Aways of Constitutional Bond Case?

• The ruling also sheds light on the distinction between financial and non-financial bills, emphasizing that not every legislative decision warrants the presumption of constitutionality.
• The decision challenges the notion that citizens have no right to know about political party funding, affirming the individual voter's right to equality of information and influence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Electoral Bond Scheme stands as a testament to the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles and ensuring transparency in political processes. As India navigates its democratic journey, such landmark rulings reinforce the foundation of accountability and equality in governance.