Supreme Court rejects plea seeking review of verdict scrapping electoral bonds

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud dismissed the review petition filed by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara and another person. 

In Short

• Five-judge bench dismisses review petition, no apparent error found
• Petition was filed by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara and another person. 
• February 15 ruling declared electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional

The Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking a review of the Constitution Bench's February 15 ruling, which voided the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud dismissed the review petition filed by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara and another person.

Rejecting a series of review petitions, the top court concluded that there was "no error apparent on the face of the record." In its ruling, the court stated that there was "no case for review" under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.

The judgement passed by the top court on September 25 was uploaded on Saturday on the court's official website.

On February 15, the Supreme Court held that the electoral board scheme had to be struck down as unconstitutional and ordered the banks to stop issuing bonds immediately.

The bench ruled that "the Union has been unable to establish that the measure adopted in clause 7(4)(1) of the electoral scheme is the least restrictive measure."

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court declared the recent amendments to the Income Tax Act and Section 29C of the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act as ultra vires, or beyond legal authority. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delivering the verdict, also struck down the amendment to the Companies Act, calling the allowance of blanket corporate political funding "unconstitutional."

The court further directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to halt the issuance of electoral bonds immediately and submit all relevant details to the Election Commission by March 6, marking a significant shift in electoral transparency.

The court further directed the poll body to publish these details within one week of receiving them, underscoring the need for greater transparency in political funding.

In its February 15 verdict, the court also ruled that political parties must return any electoral bonds within the 15-day validity period to their purchasers.

Highlighting concerns over privacy, the bench noted, "Lack of privacy of political affiliation would be catastrophic. It can be used to disenfranchise voters."

The case, reserved in November 2023, was brought to the top court by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Congress leader Jaya Thakur, and activist Spandan Biswal, who challenged the electoral bonds scheme.