# ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 2 S.C.R. 851
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-03-26
- **Case number:** Interlocutory application no. 183625 of 2019
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/association-for-democratic-reforms-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-34937
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 851
851
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Interlocutory Application No.183625 Of 2019 and 36653 of 2021)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017)
MARCH 26, 2021
S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A.S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Elections:
Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Application seeking stay of
the sale of electoral bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018
- Another application seeking an interim direction to the Union of
India not to open any further window for sale of Electoral Bonds
which is likely to be opened on 01.04.2021 under the Scheme -
Plea that Electoral Bonds Scheme allows the donors of political
parties to maintain anonymity - Held: Despite the fact that the
Scheme provides anonymity, the Scheme is intended to ensure that
everything happens only through banking channels - While the
identity of the purchaser of the bond is withheld, it is ensured that
unidentified/ unidentifiable persons cannot purchase the bonds and
give it to the political parties - A non-KYC compliant application or
an application for purchase of bonds not meeting the requirements
of the scheme would be rejected - As a result the information about
the purchaser would certainly be available with the SBI which alone
is authorised to issue and encash the bonds as per the Scheme -
Moreover, any expenditure incurred by anyone in purchasing the
bonds through banking channels, would have to be accounted as
an expenditure in his books of accounts - Furthermore, since the
Scheme mandates political parties to file audited statement of
accounts and also since the Companies Act requires financial
statements of registered companies to be filed with the Registrar of
Companies, the purchase as well as encashment of the bonds,
happening only through banking channels, is always reflected in
documents that eventually come to the public domain - Thus, since
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
the Scheme was introduced on 2.1.2018 and the bonds are released
at periodical intervals of every year, viz 2018, 2019 and 2020
without any impediment; and that certain safeguards have already
been provided by this Court, no justification for the grant of stay at
this stage - Furthermore, once this Court has passed an order
directing some interim arrangement, thereafter applications for the
same relief cannot be made, every time the window for the purchase
under the Scheme is opened.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutory application
no. 183625 of 2019 and interlocutory application no. 36653 of 2021 in
writ petition(c) no.880 of 2017.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advs.
for the Petitioners.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, R. Bala, Rakesh Dwivedi,
Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ankur Begani, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Shyam
Gopal, Ms. Chinamayee Chandra, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Seema
Bengami, Ankur Talwar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha,
Ms. Pallavi Barua, Prateek Kumar, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Prashant
Bhardwaj, Rishi Bharadwaj, Abhiesumat Gupta, Vikram Singh Jakhar,
P. V. Dinesh, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Bineesh K., Ashwini Kumar Singh, B.
K. Pal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun
Sharma, Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Sushma Suri, Aviral
Kashyap, Advs. for the Respondents.
Applicant-in-person.
The Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. The Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause
have joined together and come up with the above Public Interest Litigation
praying for the:
"(a) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate
writ declaring --
(i)
Section 135 of the Finance Act 2017 and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 31 of
the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
(ii)
Section 137 of the Finance Act, 2017, and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 29C
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(iii)
Section 11 of the Finance Act

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 851
851
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Interlocutory Application No.183625 Of 2019 and 36653 of 2021)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017)
MARCH 26, 2021
S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A.S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Elections:
Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Application seeking stay of
the sale of electoral bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018
- Another application seeking an interim direction to the Union of
India not to open any further window for sale of Electoral Bonds
which is likely to be opened on 01.04.2021 under the Scheme -
Plea that Electoral Bonds Scheme allows the donors of political
parties to maintain anonymity - Held: Despite the fact that the
Scheme provides anonymity, the Scheme is intended to ensure that
everything happens only through banking channels - While the
identity of the purchaser of the bond is withheld, it is ensured that
unidentified/ unidentifiable persons cannot purchase the bonds and
give it to the political parties - A non-KYC compliant application or
an application for purchase of bonds not meeting the requirements
of the scheme would be rejected - As a result the information about
the purchaser would certainly be available with the SBI which alone
is authorised to issue and encash the bonds as per the Scheme -
Moreover, any expenditure incurred by anyone in purchasing the
bonds through banking channels, would have to be accounted as
an expenditure in his books of accounts - Furthermore, since the
Scheme mandates political parties to file audited statement of
accounts and also since the Companies Act requires financial
statements of registered companies to be filed with the Registrar of
Companies, the purchase as well as encashment of the bonds,
happening only through banking channels, is always reflected in
documents that eventually come to the public domain - Thus, since
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
the Scheme was introduced on 2.1.2018 and the bonds are released
at periodical intervals of every year, viz 2018, 2019 and 2020
without any impediment; and that certain safeguards have already
been provided by this Court, no justification for the grant of stay at
this stage - Furthermore, once this Court has passed an order
directing some interim arrangement, thereafter applications for the
same relief cannot be made, every time the window for the purchase
under the Scheme is opened.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutory application
no. 183625 of 2019 and interlocutory application no. 36653 of 2021 in
writ petition(c) no.880 of 2017.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advs.
for the Petitioners.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, R. Bala, Rakesh Dwivedi,
Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ankur Begani, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Shyam
Gopal, Ms. Chinamayee Chandra, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Seema
Bengami, Ankur Talwar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha,
Ms. Pallavi Barua, Prateek Kumar, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Prashant
Bhardwaj, Rishi Bharadwaj, Abhiesumat Gupta, Vikram Singh Jakhar,
P. V. Dinesh, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Bineesh K., Ashwini Kumar Singh, B.
K. Pal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun
Sharma, Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Sushma Suri, Aviral
Kashyap, Advs. for the Respondents.
Applicant-in-person.
The Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. The Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause
have joined together and come up with the above Public Interest Litigation
praying for the:
"(a) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate
writ declaring --
(i)
Section 135 of the Finance Act 2017 and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 31 of
the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
(ii)
Section 137 of the Finance Act, 2017, and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 29C
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(iii)
Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2017 and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 13A,
the Income Tax Act, 1961
(iv)
Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2017 and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section 182
of the Companies Act, 2013 and
(v)
Section 236 of Finance Act, 2016 and the
corresponding amendment carried out in Section
2(1)(j)(vi) of the Foreign Regulations Contribution Act,
2010
as being unconstitutional, illegal and void.
(b)
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing that no political parties would accept any
donation in cash."
2. On 3.10.2017, notice was ordered in the writ petition and the
writ petition was directed to be tagged along with Writ Petition (C) No.333
of 2015 and Special Leave Petition (C) No.18190 of 2014. Though Writ
Petition (C) No.333 of 2015 was also by the Association for Democratic
Reforms and another person, the reliefs sought therein were little
different. The prayers made in the said writ petition were for (i) a
declaration that all national and regional political parties are public
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) a direction to
the Election Commission of India to collect all information concerning
the finances of political parties; (iii) a direction to all national and regional
political parties to mandatorily disclose complete details about their
income, expenditure, donations and funding as well as full details of the
donors.
3. On 12.4.2019 this Court passed an interim order in common in
Writ Petition (C) Nos.333 of 2015, 880 of 2017 and two other writ petitions.
Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the said interim order read as follows:
"xxxx
 xxxx
 xxxx
11. We have considered the matter including the amendments in
the different statutes brought in by the Finance Act, 2016 and
2017. We have closely examined the stand taken by the respective
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
parties including what has been stated by the Election Commission
of India in the affidavit filed, details of which have been setout.
All that we would like to state for the present is that the rival
contentions give rise to weighty issues which have a tremendous
bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country.
Such weighty issues would require an in depth hearing which
cannot be concluded and the issues answered within the limited
time that is available before the process of funding through the
electoral Bonds comes to a closure, as per the schedule noted
earlier.
12. The court, therefore, has to ensure that any interim arrangement
that may be made would not tilt the balance in favour of either of
the parties but that the same ensures adequate safeguards against
the competing claims of the parties which are yet to be adjudicated.
13. In the above perspective, according to us, the just and proper
interim direction would be to require all the political parties who
have received donations through electoral Bonds to submit to the
Election Commission of India in sealed cover, detailed particulars
of the donors as against the each Bond; the amount of each such
bond and the full particulars of the credit received against each
bond, namely, the particulars of the bank account to which the
amount has been credited and the date of each such credit.
14. The above details will be furnished forthwith in respect of
Electoral Bonds received by a political party till date. The details
of such other bonds that may be received by such a political party
upto the date fixed for issuing such bonds as per the Note of the
Ministry of finance dated 28.2.2019, i.e. 15.5.2019 will be submitted
on or before 30th May, 2019. The sealed covers will remain in the
custody of the Election Commission of India and will abide by
such orders as may be passed by the Court.
15. As per Clause 8 of the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, electoral
bonds are to be issued for a period of 10 days in the months of
January, April, July and October and additional 30 days is provided
during an election year. As per the Schedule contained in the Note
of the finance Ministry dated 28.2.2019, extracted above, a total
period of 45 days has been fixed for issuing the bonds in the month
of March, April and May. This, we are told, is in addition to the
period of 10 days during which the Bonds were made available in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
the month of January, 2019. In view of Clause 8 of the electoral
bond Scheme the days fixed for issuing the bonds in the month of
March and May will necessary have to be related to the period of
30 days allowed for an election year. The total period, therefore,
allowable for the month of January (10 days), April (10 days) and
30 days for the election year would be 50 whereas the Schedule
contemplates issuance of bonds for a total period of 55 days i.e.
45 days plus 10 days of January. A period of 5 days, therefore,
have to be deleted from the Schedule contained in the Note of the
Ministry of Finance dated 28.2.2019. such deletion will be made
by the Ministry of Finance who will be free to decide the days of
deletion/exclusion."
4. As can be seen from the last line of paragraph 11 of the
aforesaid order, this Court thought fit to make an interim arrangement as
it was not possible to decide all the issues within the limited time available
before the process of funding through Electoral Bonds came to a closure.
At the time when the aforesaid interim order was passed, the schedule
for the issuance of Electoral Bonds for the months of March, April and
May, 2019 had been announced to be (i) 1.3.2019 to 15.3.2019; (ii)
1.4.2019 to 20.4.2019; and (iii) 6.5.2019 to 15.5.2019.
5. Thereafter, the Association for Democratic Reforms filed the
above application I.A. No.183625 of 2019 seeking a stay of the Electoral
Bond Scheme, 2018 notified by the Central Government vide notification
dated 2.1.2018. It is mentioned in paragraph 6 of this application that
after this Court passed the interim order dated 12.4.2019 certain vital
documents having a strong bearing on the case surfaced. However, the
above application filed on 29.11.2019 could not be taken up for hearing.
6. Therefore, the writ petitioners have come up with a fresh
application in I.A. No.36653 of 2021 seeking an interim direction to the
respondents not to open any further window for sale of Electoral Bonds
under the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 and to prevent the respondents
from any further sale of Electoral Bonds. This application is filed on the
premise that the window for the sale of fresh bonds is likely to be opened
at present on April 1, 2021.
7. Since the reliefs sought in both the applications, though filed in
a gap of two years, are one and the same, they were taken up together.
8. At the outset, learned Attorney General submitted that the copy
of the latest application was received only three days ago and that
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
however he will advance arguments without seeking time for counter if
no fresh material other than those found in I.A. No.183625 of 2019 is
relied upon. This was agreed to.
9. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
applicants/writ petitioners, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General
for the Union of India and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Election Commission of India.
10. We should point out at the threshold that there cannot be
repeated applications seeking the same relief, merely because the interim
reliefs sought, relates to something that is to happen at periodical intervals
of time. Under Clause 8(1) of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018 the
bonds under the Scheme are made available for purchase, for a period
of 10 days each in the months of January, April, July and October.
Therefore, once this Court has passed an Order on 12.4.2019 directing
some interim arrangement, thereafter applications for the same interim
relief cannot be made, every time the window for the purchase under
the Scheme is opened.
11. Despite the aforesaid normal rule of procedure and practice,
we heard the learned counsel on both sides on the present applications,
due to the seriousness of the issues raised. The main attack of Shri
Prashant Bhushan, to the Electoral Bonds Scheme is that it allows the
donors of political parties to maintain anonymity which is not healthy for
a democracy. Though technically the Government may be in a position
to find out the names of the donors, as the Scheme operates through the
State Bank of India via banking channels, the members of the public
and political parties not in power, will not be able to find out. Moreover,
the amount of funds received by a party in power will normally be more,
as it will be reciprocated with favours. The learned counsel also drew
our attention to the various letters written by the Reserve Bank of India
(for short "RBI") as well as the Election Commission to contend that
they had serious reservations about the Scheme.
12. Opposing the prayer for stay, it is contended by the learned
Attorney General that this Scheme was intended to prevent unaccounted
money having a sway in the elections and that under the Scheme the
donors are obliged to operate only through banking channels. This,
according to the learned Attorney General, curbed the menace of black
money playing a huge part in the elections. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India supported the
Scheme.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
857
13. It is true, as seen from the correspondence, that RBI has had
some reservations. But it is not correct to say that the RBI and the
Election Commission of India opposed the Electoral Bond Scheme itself.
The Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 was issued by the Central Government
by a notification dated 2.1.2018 in exercise of the power conferred by
Section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Before the issue
of the said Scheme, there were discussions in which RBI participated.
In their letter dated 4.8.2017 RBI recommended only certain safeguards.
The relevant portion of the letter of the RBI dated 4.8.2017 reads as
follows:
"xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
We recommend, the following safeguards may be incorporated
to minimize the inherent scope of misuse of such bonds for
undesirable activities.
(a) The EBBs may have a tenor of maximum 15 days.
(b) The EBBs can be purchased for any value in multiples of
Rs.1,000, Rs.10,000 or Rs.100,000.
(c) The purchase of EBBs would be allowed from a fully KYC
compliant bank account of the purchaser.
(d) The EBBs can be redeemed only by way of deposit into
the designated bank account of an eligible political party.
(e) The sale of EBBs will be open for a limited period, may be
twice in a year, for 7 days each.
(f) The EBBs will be issued at RBI, Mumbai only"
14. Even in his letter dated 14.9.2017 the then Governor of RBI
stated that the major objective of the Scheme is to provide anonymity
and that the same can be achieved if the bonds are issued in electronic
form with RBI as the depository rather than as a physical scrip. On
27.9.2017 the matter was placed before the Committee of the Central
Board of RBI and the Committee flagged serious reservations. These
reservations, incorporated in the next letter of the RBI dated 27.9.2017
were read out to us by Shri Prashant Bhushan, in support of his contention
that the Scheme, as proposed by the Government will not only be seen
as facilitating money laundering, but also projected as intended to enable
it.
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
15. However, paragraph 5 of the same letter dated 27.9.2017 of
the then Governor of RBI to the Finance Minister makes their final
position clear and it reads as follows:
"If the government is aggreable to revisit its stance on issuing
EBs in scrip form, we can discuss the modalities of issuance
of EB in demat form, including the facility for multiple
transfers before the proceeds are eventually credited to a
political party's designated bank account, and with the
Reserve Bank being the sole custodian of the information of
the initial subscriber and the subsequent transferees. You
would kindly appreciate that this would give us the twin
advantage of providing anonymity to the contributor and at
the same time ensuring that consideration for transfers
between persons and entities, before the value of bond is
credited to the political party, is through bank transfers and
not cash or other means. This will be an enduring reform,
consistent with the government's digitisation push, which can
segue into an even more transparent process of electoral
funding when the system is ready for it."
16. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the RBI was opposed to
the Scheme in principle. RBI's objection was to the issue of bonds in
scrip form rather than in demat form. What RBI wanted to achieve
was, in their own words, the twin advantage of (i) providing anonymity
to the contributor; and (ii) ensuring that consideration for transfers is
through banking channels and not cash or other means. In fact RBI
called Electoral Bonds as "an enduring reform, consistent with the
Government's digitization push". Therefore, the concerns expressed
by RBI, to the form and not to the substance, cannot really advance the
case of the petitioners.
17. As a matter of fact, most of the recommendations of the RBI
have been accepted and incorporated in the Scheme. The following
features of the Scheme demonstrate this: (i) only political parties registered
under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and
secured not less than 1% of the votes polled in the last general election
to the House of the people or the legislative assembly shall be entitled to
receive the bond; (ii) the bond can be encashed by an eligible political
party only through a bank account with the authorized bank; (iii) the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
extant instructions issued by RBI regarding KYC norms and the bank's
customer shall apply for the buyers of the bond and the authorized bank
may also call for any additional KYC document; (iv) the bond shall be
valid for 15 days from the date of issue and no payment will be made to
any payee political party if the bond is deposited after the expiry of the
validity period; (v) all payments for the issue of the bonds shall be accepted
in Indian rupees, through demand draft or cheque or through electronic
clearance system or direct debit of the buyers' account; (vi) the bond
can be encashed only by depositing the same in the designated bank
account of the eligible political party; (vii) the face value of the bonds
shall be counted as income by way of voluntary contribution received by
an eligible political party for the purpose of exemption from income tax
under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
18. Despite the fact that the Scheme provides anonymity, the
Scheme is intended to ensure that everything happens only through
banking channels. While the identity of the purchaser of the bond is
withheld, it is ensured that unidentified/ unidentifiable persons cannot
purchase the bonds and give it to the political parties. Under clause 7 of
the Scheme, buyers have to apply in the prescribed form, either physically
or online disclosing the particulars specified therein. Though the
information furnished by the buyer shall be treated confidential by the
authorised bank and shall not be disclosed to any authority for any
purposes, it is subject to one exception namely when demanded by a
competent court or upon registration of criminal case by any law
enforcement agency. A non-KYC compliant application or an application
not meeting the requirements of the scheme shall be rejected.
 19. As far as the information to the Election Commission is
concerned, the interim order passed by this Court on 12.4.2019 takes
care of the same. In the reply filed by the Election Commission of India
on 3.2.2020 to I.A. No.183625 of 2019, it is stated by them that the
Election Commission of India has received sealed covers from various
political parties (National, State and registered & unregistered parties).
In Annexure C/1, to the reply filed by the Election Commission of India
the Election Commission has provided a list of the political parties who
have filed necessary details as per the order of this Court dated 12.4.2019.
The dates on which the Election Commission of India received
the necessary information in sealed covers is also indicated in Annexure
C/1.
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
20. In Annexure C/2 to the reply, the Election Commission has
also furnished details of submission of audited annual accounts of the
political parties.
21. The fact that some of the parties have not yet submitted their
audited annual accounts is a different matter and the same is not the
subject matter of the present applications.
22. We do not know at this stage as to how far the allegation that
under the Scheme, there would be complete anonymity in the financing
of political parties by corporate houses, both in India and abroad, is
sustainable. If the purchase of the bonds as well as their encashment
could happen only through banking channels and if purchase of bonds
are allowed only to customers who fulfill KYC norms, the information
about the purchaser will certainly be available with the SBI which alone
is authorised to issue and encash the bonds as per the Scheme. Moreover,
any expenditure incurred by anyone in purchasing the bonds through
banking channels, will have to be accounted as an expenditure in his
books of accounts. The trial balance, cash flow statement, profit and
loss account and balance sheet of companies which purchase Electoral
Bonds will have to necessarily reflect the amount spent by way of
expenditure in the purchase of Electoral Bonds.
23. Under Section 128 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 every
company shall prepare and keep books of accounts and financial
statement for every financial year. 'Financial statement' is defined under
Section 2(40) as follows:-
"2. --
(40) "financial statement" in relation to a company, includes-
(i)
a balance sheet as at the end of the financial year;
(ii)
a profit and loss account, or in the case of a company
carrying on any activity not for profit, an income and
expenditure account for the financial year;
(iii)
cash flow statement for the financial year;
(iv)
a statement of changes in equity, if applicable; and
(v)
any explanatory note annexed to, or forming part of, any
document referred to in sub-clause (i) to sub-clause (iv):
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
Provided that the financial statement, with respect to One
Person Company, small company and dormant company,
may not include the cash flow statement;"
24. Under Section 129(1), such financial statements should give a
true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company and comply
with the accounting standards notified under Section 133. These financial
statements are to be placed at every Annual General Meeting of the
company. Under Section 137, a copy of the financial statement, along
with all the documents duly adopted at the Annual General Meeting shall
be filed with the Registrar of Companies.
25. The financial statements of companies registered under the
Companies Act, 2013 which are filed with the Registrar of Companies,
are accessible online on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
for anyone. They can also be obtained in physical form from the Registrar
of Companies upon payment of prescribed fee. Since the Scheme
mandates political parties to file audited statement of accounts and also
since the Companies Act requires financial statements of registered
companies to be filed with the Registrar of Companies, the purchase as
well as encashment of the bonds, happening only through banking
channels, is always reflected in documents that eventually come to the
public domain. All that is required is a little more effort to cull out such
information from both sides (purchaser of bond and political party) and
do some "match the following". Therefore, it is not as though the
operations under the Scheme are behind iron curtains incapable of being
pierced.
26. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that though the
first purchase may be through banking channels for a consideration paid
in white money, someone may repurchase the bonds from the first buyer
by using black money and hand it over to a political party. But this
contention arises out of ignorance of the Scheme. Under Clause 14 of
the Scheme, the bonds are not tradable. Moreover, the first buyer will
not stand to gain anything out of such sale except losing white money for
the black.
27. The apprehension that foreign corporate houses may buy the
bonds and attempt to influence the electoral process in the country, is
also misconceived. Under Clause 3 of the Scheme, the Bonds may be
purchased only by a person, who is a citizen of India or incorporated or
established in India.
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
28. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the Scheme was
introduced on 2.1.2018; that the bonds are released at periodical intervals
in January, April, July and October of every year; that they had been so
released in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 without any impediment; and
that certain safeguards have already been provided by this Court in its
interim order dated 12.4.2019, we do not see any justification for the
grant of stay at this stage. Hence both the applications for stay are
dismissed.
Nidhi Jain
Applications dismissed.