Supreme Court refers electoral bonds case to 5-judge Constitution bench

A number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) contesting the Center's electoral bonds program, which detractors claim allows anonymous contributors unchecked authority to give money to political parties without being held accountable, were referred by the Supreme Court on Monday to a five-judge constitution bench.

"The matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges in light of the significance of the issues raised in this batch of petitions and with regard to Article 145(3) of the Constitution." The panel of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra announced that the matter will be retained on October 31.

In order to form the proper bench administratively, the bench submitted the case to the Chief Justice of India.

The matter was originally scheduled before a three-judge bench on October 31 due to an earlier judgment passed by the court on October 10, so even though the formal order was not published, it is evident that the five or seven-judge bench, depending on the situation, will hear the subject starting on that date.

Article 145(3) states that a minimum of five judges must sit in order to decide any case containing a significant legal issue regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or to hear any reference under Article 143.

"Provided that in the event that a court hearing an appeal under any of the chapter's provisions, other than Article 132, is composed of fewer than five judges and it becomes clear during the appeal hearing that the appeal involves a significant legal question regarding the interpretation of this Constitution, the resolution of which is required for the appeal's disposal, the court shall refer the question for opinion to a court established in accordance with this clause in order to decide any case involving such a question and shall, upon receipt of the opinion, dispose

The bench had proposed during the previous hearing that the case be sent to a Constitution bench consisting of seven or nine judges, who would begin deliberating on matters pertaining to the definition of a "money bill."

The Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), the CPM, and a few other people had contested the legality of the electoral bonds introduced by the NDA administration through changes to the Finance Act of 2017 and the Finance Act of 2016, which were both passed as money bills and, in the petitioners' opinion, had opened the door to unrestricted political donations.

The primary petitioner, the ADR, had claimed in 2021 that the incumbent BJP had gotten more than 60% of all electoral bonds issued up to that point. More than Rs 6,500 crore worth of electoral bonds were allegedly sold, with the majority of proceeds going to the ruling party, according to the ADR. Additionally, it had stated that nearly all of the electoral bonds bought—99 per cent—were valued between Rs 1 crore and Rs 10 lakh, indicating that big businesses—rather than private citizens—were the ones making the purchases.