Live
- Boy swept away in open drain dies
- What are “Happy Foods”? How can they improve your wellbeing?
- CM interacts with food poisoning victims
- Bombay HC slams police for treating Badlapur rapes ‘lightly’, raps school for not reporting crime
- AP, Telangana to receive rains for next five days amid expected low pressure in Bay of Bengal
- Chandrayaan-3 Unveils New Lunar Insights from Shiva Shakti Point
- No longer a '2014-2024 era': Pawan Khera scoffs at 'Centre will crush Cong govt' remarks
- Celebrate Chiranjeevi’s 69th Birthday with Top Hits on Aha OTT
- Delhi HC refers dispute between BharatPe, Ashneer Grover to arbitration
- BJP's commitment to Kashmir's peace saw Rahul Gandhi relish ice cream in Lal Chowk, says Tarun Chugh
Electoral bonds scheme does not impinge any existing right of any person, Attorney General Venkataramani tells SC
Supreme Court of India
Attorney General R. Venkataramani has told the Supreme Court that the electoral bonds scheme floated by the Centre does not impinge upon any existing right of any person and cannot be said to be repugnant to any fundamental rights contained under Part III of the Constitution.
New Delhi: Attorney General R. Venkataramani has told the Supreme Court that the electoral bonds scheme floated by the Centre does not impinge upon any existing right of any person and cannot be said to be repugnant to any fundamental rights contained under Part III of the Constitution.
In his brief submissions filed before the apex court, the top-most law officer of the Union government said that any law which is not repugnant to fundamental rights of citizens cannot be voided for any other reason.
"Judicial review is not about scanning state policies for the purposes of suggesting better or different prescriptions," Venkataramani told the Supreme Court.
He added that the judgments rendered by the apex court in the past cannot be read as to suggest that a citizen has a right to information under Art. 19(1)(a) regarding funding of political parties.
"The scheme in question extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor. It ensures and promotes clean money being contributed. It ensures abiding by tax obligations. Thus, it does not fall foul of any existing right. A constitutional court reviews state action only if it impinges upon existing rights and not because State action has not provided for a possible right or an expectation, howsoever desirable," read short submissions filed by Venkataramani.
Recently, the Supreme Court has notified the composition of a five-judge Constitution bench which will hear a batch of petitions filed against the electoral bonds scheme. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, the bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra will take up the matter for hearing on October 31.
The pleas challenging the electoral bonds scheme were referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court in view of the importance of the issue raised having regard to Article 145(4) of the Constitution.
