Is the Supreme Court Challenging Anonymous Political Donations Under Rs 2,000?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court is set to scrutinize a PIL that questions the legality of anonymous cash donations to political parties under Rs 2,000, raising concerns about transparency and public trust in elections. This case could reshape the electoral funding landscape in India.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of anonymous donations to political parties.
- This case raises significant questions about transparency in electoral funding.
- Voter awareness of political donors is crucial for informed decision-making.
- Non-compliance and delayed disclosures by political parties are widespread issues.
- The outcome could reshape the landscape of political funding in India.
New Delhi, Nov 24 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has decided to review a public interest litigation (PIL) that questions the constitutional integrity of Section 13A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section permits political parties to accept anonymous cash donations of less than Rs 2,000.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and twelve prominent political parties, requesting their reactions to the petition which argues that this provision infringes upon the citizens’ fundamental right to information as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).
The petition, submitted by advocate Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, posits that the persistent acceptance of cash donations, allegedly under Rs 2,000, obscures donor identities and diminishes public confidence in the electoral system.
“Voters deserve to know the financial backers of political parties to make informed electoral decisions,” the PIL asserts.
“Only with access to information regarding the individuals financing these parties can voters make rational and informed choices,” the document elaborates.
The petition highlights findings from contribution reports and audits of recognized political entities, indicating widespread non-compliance, tardy disclosures, and a significant portion of funds originating from undisclosed sources.
For instance, various parties, including the BJP, CPI-M, NPP, and INC, reportedly submitted their annual contributions long after the September 30 deadline, often without justifications for the delays.
It also brings attention to numerous discrepancies such as absent addresses, missing PAN details, unexplained bank interest accrued, and substantial amounts listed under “fees and subscriptions” without revealing the contributors.
In a specific example, the BSP allegedly declared all its income from membership fees in cash for 18 consecutive years without detailed disclosures, aside from bank interest.
The petitioner, Dr. Khem Singh Bhati, has urged the apex court to instruct the ECI to investigate contribution reports, enforce refunds for sums lacking adequate donor identification, issue notices under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols Order for failure to submit Form 24A contribution reports, and ensure independent audits of political party finances.
Point of View
It is imperative to uphold transparency and accountability. The concerns raised in this PIL resonate with the need for a well-informed electorate. The Supreme Court's examination of this issue reflects the nation's commitment to protecting citizens' rights and maintaining the integrity of our democratic processes.
NationPress
24/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main issue being challenged in the PIL?
The PIL challenges the constitutional validity of Section 13A(d) of the Income Tax Act, which allows political parties to accept anonymous donations below Rs 2,000.
Who filed the PIL?
The PIL was filed by advocate Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan on behalf of Dr. Khem Singh Bhati.
What are the implications of this PIL?
If upheld, this PIL could enhance transparency in political funding, allowing voters to make informed decisions based on the identities of political donors.
How have political parties responded to donation disclosures?
Many political parties have been criticized for late submissions of contribution reports and for failing to disclose complete donor information.
What could be the outcome of the Supreme Court's review?
The Supreme Court may direct the Election Commission to enforce stricter auditing and transparency measures regarding political donations.
