The Supreme Court is scheduled on 31st October to consider a set of petitions that challenge the Electoral Bonds scheme.

The matter was heard before the bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra addressing preliminary matters today.

The petitioners have chosen not to argue at this time about whether the scheme qualifies as a money bill, as the resolution of this issue awaits a decision by a seven-judge bench in the case of Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.

During the proceedings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan emphasized the eed for the matter to be heard soon, noting that Electoral Bonds were being issued ahead of assembly elections due to the unresolved matter.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud assured Bhushan that the court was prepared to proceed with the case. However, R Venkatramani, the Attorney General for India, intervened and pointed out that one of the key challenges against Electoral Bonds was their classification as a money bill. In this context, he mentioned that the issue related to money bills was pending before a seven-judge bench in the Rojer Mathews case.

Bhushan submitted that while money bill was one of the issues raised in the plea, there were also other issues to be decided independent of the money bill. . He argued that the anonymous funding of political parties violated citizens' Right to Information.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the anonymity of such funding contributed to corruption, as it enabled companies that had received certain government benefits from specific parties to make anonymous donations to those political parties.

A corruption free society is a facet of right to life under Article 21."

Furthermore, Bhushan emphasized that the State Bank of India had been designated as the sole bank for the purchase of electoral bonds, ranging from denominations of Rs 10,000 to Rs 1 crore, despite objections from both the Election Commission of India and the Reserve Bank of India.

Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioners said:

"The real anonymity is that when you transfer to a political party. Who is donating to which party is anonymous."

CJI DY Chandrchuud, seeks further clarification, inquired whether it was possible for someone to transfer money to an individual using electoral bonds.

During the hearing today, the bench raised queries regarding the nature of the instrument.

"Can it be purchased by bank or cash? if its bank, then source of channel is banking channel and that identity is anonymous, but cash is completely anonymous," asked CJI Chandrachud.

"It is both," said advocate Prashant Bhushan who was appearing for the petitioner.

"So electoral bond is like a bearer bond. It is in the person's name or bearer bond," asked the CJI.

"Bearer bond in a limited sense that the person entitled to encash is by a recognised political party," said advocate Shadan Farasat also appearing for the petitioner.

"Ok, encashment by a political party who got at least 1 percent vote the last time. We got it and now the challenge is very clear," the CJI said.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms And Anr. v. UoI WP(C) No. 333/2015 & Connected Matters