Thread by @VakashaS

The #electoralbonds case is being heard in Supreme Court. Attorney General resumes his arguments.

For what happened yesterday, you can check out this thread 👇

https://twitter.com/VakashaS/status/1115863595630374913?s=19

Attorney General KK Venugopal explains that the electoral bonds scheme is a matter of policy, and so the courts shouldn't interfere in it.

You can read the details of the government's arguments here @TheQuint 👇
thequint.com/explainers/ele…

Now Venugopal submits details of the scheme published by the government to explain how secrecy is maintained.

He also describes the security features of the #electoralbonds including the unique reference number that can be viewed under UV light.

@TheQuint

FYI Venugopal disputed the claim that the BJP has received 95% of donations made through electoral bonds. @TheQuint

Here's where that figure comes from:
thequint.com/news/politics/…

A-G explains the process for purchase and encashment of #electoralbonds, including the KYC requirements and the verification done before the bonds are encashed.

Once again points how unaccounted cash posted a huge part in electoral funding previously. ,@TheQuint

CJI asks Election Commission how much political funding used to come in cash before the scheme.

EC will need to get the figures and submit to the court.

@TheQuint

Interestingly, A-G points to the recent reports of cash being seized in large quantities (from people connected to opposition parties) as proof that the scene is working to put the squeeze in black money using electoral bonds.
@TheQuint

Venugopal also claims that there is a "sinister purpose" behind these petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme.

He points to the 95% claim as an indication of such a sinister purpose.
@TheQuint

[This kind of language is quite unfortunate, especially from someone who holds constitutional office - and is becoming a habit.
Also, the 95% figure is derived from audit details provided by the BJP to the Election Commission, so unsure how is to be disputed]

CJI again asks if the bank (SBI) can identify the purchaser of a bond.

A-G confers with an SBI officer, doesn't have an exact answer. He's still attempting to say the purchaser can be identified.
@TheQuint

CJI now asks that if the identity of the pricier cannot be traced, won't this defeat the purpose of stopping black money from being used.

A-G says since the payment has to be back to bank, only white money can be used. @TheQuint

Judges asking tough questions. CJI asks why the 7.5% net profits cap on corporate donations was removed.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna very clearly sets out how black money can be made white by routing through multiple companies, and how KYC can't trace this. @TheQuint

A-G insists that things were in more problematic state w/o electoral bonds. Shell companies, money laundering already happening, this may help stymie this.
The electoral bonds scheme is not worse than the alternative system, so govt should be allowed to see how it goes
@TheQuint

Venugopal now states unequivocally that the bank (SBI) will not be able to identify the purchaser of a particular electoral bond.

Justice Khanna asks whether govt can ask the bank for information about the bonds. Yes, says A-G.
@TheQuint

EC confirms that they know the amount of bonds encashed by a political party.
CJI points out that under proviso to Section 29C of the Representation of Peoples Act, which was inserted by Finance Act 2017, parties don't need to disclose donations by electoral bonds
@TheQuint

CJI (to EC): "You said you were better off than the banks, but you're not. You know nothing!"

EC says they have been given details of donations through electoral bonds by parties, but court points out this isn't a requirement by law, so parties can refuse.
@TheQuint

Venugopal was trying to argue why the additional amendments made to Companies Act, RP Act and Income Tax Act that removed disclosure requirements, caps on corporate funding etc, were necessary for the electoral bonds scheme to work.
@TheQuint

Judges however went back to questions of identity. Venugopal cited the 'Carnegie Institute' on prevalence of black money again.

Justice Gupta and also says that the right to information about funding of political candidates is very important for voters. @TheQuint

Venugopal gives a long speech about why black money is the greatest threat to democracy.

Says it is irrelevant for a voter to know who has funded a political party, as long as the funding is legitimate.
@TheQuint

Venugopal reiterates his argument that this is a policy experiment which should be allowed, can be reviewed after some time (after elections at any rate) to see if it successful or not. @TheQuint

Venugopal has been reading from some judgments on why the government has a right to experiment with policy, which courts should not interfere with.
Says they should be allowed to run the electoral bonds scheme till elections are over. @TheQuint

CJI Gogoi and Justice Gupta point out that the govt has announced the scheme will run for 55 days till elections are over, when the max they can do is run it for 50 days under the scheme.
@TheQuint

A-G: "Transparency cannot be a mantra. Cannot be cited without looking at at the facts and circumstances"

A-G also says right to privacy of donors needs to be respected. @TheQuint

A-G: "Best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. Would hope the court upholds it."
Venugopal concludes. @TheQuint

Now Prashant Bhushan providing some rejoinders.

Says electoral bonds scheme doesn't actually impose any curbs on generation or donation of black money.

"Just opened another channel to provide money to political parties." @pbhushan1
@TheQuint

Bhushan notes that Justice Khanna had also pointed out how black money could be converted into white through shell companies.
CJI points out that cash donations can still be made.
@TheQuint

Next, @pbhushan1 submits a response by the Election Commission to an RTI request on various questions re electoral bonds.

First, EC has no details of complaints of victimisation.
Second, that's where the 95% figure is derived from.
@TheQuint

Court then asks Raju Ramachandran if he has any specific rejoinders. Ramachandran looks to rebut the 'Carnegie Institute' report cited by A-G, but CJI says the report isn't relevant.
@TheQuint

BREAKING: CJI says court will pronounce its order on whether to stay the electoral bonds scheme for current phases (April and May) and possible future phases, tomorrow (Friday, 12 April) at 10:30 am.
@TheQuint

NOTE: This will be an interim order, not a final decision on the constitutionality of the electoral bonds scheme. This is a decision on the application for stay of the scheme which was filled along with the PILs challenging it as a whole. @TheQuint

Thanks to everyone for taking the time out to follow this thread.

For all these details on the hearing, including all those controversial arguments by the Attorney General (and some important fact-checking), do give this a read and share @TheQuint
thequint.com/news/law/sc-el…

After all that, we now get an interim order that's going to be ineffective for transparency and the level playing field, to put it mildly. Easy excuses, sealed covers and a pointless deadline.
thequint.com/voices/opinion…