Opaque electoral bonds scheme will destroy democracy: Petitioners to SC

Here's a lowdown on the important cases heard in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was told that Electoral Bonds, which allow for anonymous funding to political parties, are not election-centric but a means to enrich political parties in power both at the Centre and in the States, laced with quid pro quo. A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was told that Electoral Bonds have nothing to do with the election and there is no accountability.

The "opaque" electoral bonds scheme for funding political parties will "destroy democracy” as it promotes corruption and does not allow a level playing field between the ruling and opposition parties, the petitioners challenging the validity of the scheme told the SC which observed election funding was a "complicated issue". The hearing will continue on November 1.

Some of the other important cases that were heard today are:  

- SC sought a response from the Centre on former JNU student Umar Khalid's plea challenging various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

- Noting that air pollution persists in the national capital despite several remedial steps having been taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), SC directed Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan governments to file affidavits enumerating measures initiated by them to control it.

- Saying that they showed a complete lack of knowledge of the law, SC strongly reprimanded three lawyers for drafting and filing a petition seeking to declare Articles 20 and 22 as 'ultra vires', or beyond the powers, of Part III of the Constitution.

- SC deferred till December 1 the hearing of the bail plea of suspended Jharkhand cadre IAS officer Pooja Singhal, an accused in a money laundering case.

- SC reserved its verdict on the plea by former BSP MP Afzal Ansari, seeking suspension of his conviction in a 2007 Gangster Act case.

(With inputs from Agencies)