A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a review of its earlier judgment regarding the constitutionality of the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. This scheme, introduced by the government to facilitate political funding, has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny since its inception.

The Supreme Court's previous ruling, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and a five-judge bench, declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The petition challenging this decision, filed by Senior Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, raises critical arguments that deserve careful consideration.

One of the primary contentions in the petition is the question of justiciability concerning the fundamental rights of citizens. The petitioner argues that since the scheme impacts all citizens and is not specific to any individual's rights, it may not be justiciable in a strict sense. This raises a fundamental question about the role of the judiciary in matters that pertain to legislative and executive policies, especially when they involve broad public interests.

The petitioner further contends that the Supreme Court acted as an appellate authority over the Parliament by striking down the law, thereby substituting its judgment for matters within the exclusive domain of the legislature and executive. This argument touches upon the delicate balance of power among the branches of government in a democratic setup.

Additionally, the petition highlights the lack of specific legal injury claimed by the petitioner, suggesting that their case couldn’t have been treated as a private litigation solely for the enforcement of exclusive rights. This raises procedural questions about the scope and nature of public interest litigations concerning policy matters of national significance.

On the substance of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, the petition argues in favor of its transparency and efficacy in curbing black money in politics. While acknowledging that the scheme may not completely eliminate the influence of illicit funds, it emphasizes the importance of allowing contributions to political parties with a level of confidentiality. This confidentiality, according to the plea, helps prevent undue influence by keeping donor and recipient information secret.

The government's stance on the Electoral Bonds Scheme emphasizes its role in promoting clean and transparent political funding. According to the government's notifications, Electoral Bonds are interest-free instruments available to Indian citizens and incorporated bodies for contributing to political parties. The scheme aims to strike a balance between ensuring financial support for parties and maintaining transparency in political funding.

The Supreme Court's earlier ruling highlighted the crucial role of transparency in political funding for a healthy democracy. Information regarding funding sources can reveal potential conflicts of interest or quid pro quo scenarios where donors expect favors in return for their contributions.

Case: Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr. vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and ors.