COURT IN THE ACT

The Supreme Court says the Electoral Bonds Scheme violates the principle of free and fair elections and goes against several constitutional provisions

Law is not often associated with literature. And neither is the appreciation or criticism of the verdict of a court. However, at times they need to be! Like in the case of the unanimous judgment of February 15 of a Constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, J.B.

Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme. I have had the benefit of going through the concurring judgments of the court, one by the chief justice on behalf of himself and three of his colleagues and the other by Justice Khanna. Without being too laudatory, permit me to say something in the language of Shakespeare.

"A Daniel come to judgment! Yea, a Daniel.

O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!" Electoral bonds are monetary instruments that individuals, citizens and corporate groups can buy from a bank and donate to a political party of its choice-which the political party is then free to redeem for money. And, in the aggregate, this is big money. The electoral bonds case was initiated in 2017 by a public-spirited organisation, the Association for Democratic Reforms, and it was followed by several other petitioners, including individuals and political parties. But the case had little to do with politics. What was challenged was the legitimacy and constitutionality of the amendments made for the Electoral Bonds Scheme by the Finance Act of 2017 (along with the Finance Act of 2016).