Sign In
Learn bits
Polity & Governance
Mahesh

16/02/24 22:00 PM IST

Electoral Bonds verdict

In News
  • The Supreme Court found that the entire Electoral bond scheme violates the Constitution, especially the voters’ right to information.
Proportionality test
  • A law passed by Parliament cannot interfere with Part-III of the Constitution that lists out the inviolable fundamental rights.
  • The only interference with Article 19(1) — which guarantees the fundamental right to free speech — permissible is to the extent that the “reasonable restrictions” listed in Article 19(2) are not flouted. The test to decide whether an action is a reasonable restriction is the proportionality test.
  • In the 2018 SC ruling that upheld the Aadhaar Act, Justice Chandrachud in his dissenting opinion said that the proportionality test is “the dominant best practice judicial standard for resolving disputes that involve either a conflict between two rights claims or between a right and a legitimate government interest.”
  • The test is deemed necessary to guard against arbitrary action, so that the state cannot extinguish the right entirely even in pursuance of a legitimate state interest. For example, the right to life cannot be taken away to ensure law and order.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in his concurring opinion stated the the state action to be upheld must show:
  • The action is sanctioned by law;
  • The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; 
  • The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference; and
  • There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.”
Arguments in Favor
  • In the electoral bonds case, the government had argued that curbing black money and protecting donor anonymity are both legitimate aims for the state.
  • While tackling black money is fairly non-contentious, the government argued that donor anonymity is also a legitimate state interest since it seeks to give effect to a fundamental right — the right to privacy of the donor.
  • On the extent of interference with the voter’s right to know, the government argued that the right to information only operates against information in the possession or in the knowledge of the state.
  • It cannot operate for seeking information not in the knowledge or possession of the state.
Use of proportionality test
  • The Proportionality test is for when a right is directly tested against state action, but for a “balancing” of rights, the court needs to go further.
  • Essentially, the court will have to examine the matter from the perspective of both rights and decide if the state has adopted the “least restrictive” methods to realise both rights.
  • Additionally, whether the measure has a disproportionate impact on any one of the two rights also has to be looked at.
  • The CJI in his opinion pointed out that there are less intrusive methods, such as the electoral trusts scheme, to achieve the objective of curbing black money and protecting donor anonymity.
Source- Indian Express

More Related Current Affairs View All

15 Nov

Government issues guidelines to curb misleading ads by coaching centres

'The central Government issued new guidelines aimed at curbing misleading advertisements by coaching institutes, specifically prohibiting false promises such as "100 per cent selec

Read More

15 Nov

Janjatiya Gaurav Divas

'Every year on November 15th, Janjatiya Gaurav Divas is celebrated to honor the contributions of these communities, especially in India’s freedom struggle.' 5th November

Read More

15 Nov

Supreme Court’s order on mandatory accessibility standards

'A bench of the Supreme Court last week ordered the Union government to frame mandatory rules for ensuring the accessibility of public places and services to persons with disabilit

Read More

India’s First Ai-Driven Magazine Generator

Generate Your Custom Current Affairs Magazine using our AI in just 3 steps