In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.1 Which court delivered the unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme in India?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.2 What can be inferred about the Supreme Court's perspective on democracy and electoral financing from the verdict?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.3 In the context of the passage, what does "sacrosanct" most likely mean?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.4 What is the main idea of the passage?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.5 What tone does the author use to describe the Supreme Court's verdict on electoral bonds?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.6 How does the passage structure its argument regarding the electoral bond scheme?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.7 Which aspect of the electoral bond scheme was most critically scrutinized by the Supreme Court?

In a landmark decision that redefines the contours of political financing in India, the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict to strike down the electoral bond scheme marks a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey. The scheme, hailed for its potential to streamline political donations while maintaining donor anonymity, has been judged as fundamentally flawed, violating the sacrosanct principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, articulated a compelling narrative that placed the citizen's right to information at the forefront of democratic governance. By dismantling the veil of anonymity that electoral bonds provided to political donations, the Court has underscored the essentiality of informed electoral choices in a vibrant democracy. The scheme's intent to curb black money in political financing, while laudable, was critiqued for its execution. The Court, applying the proportionality test from the landmark KS Puttaswamy case, found the scheme disproportionately encroaching upon fundamental rights without employing the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Such scrutiny reveals a profound judicial awareness towards safeguarding civil liberties against overreaching state policies.

In distinguishing between contributions made as genuine political support and those potentially aimed at quid pro quo arrangements, the Court delicately balances the right to informational privacy with the imperative for transparency in political affiliations and contributions. The striking down of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which facilitated anonymous political contributions, alongside the critique of unlimited corporate donations, sends a clear message. Instructively, the Supreme Court's directive to the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to halt the issuance of electoral bonds and disclose the details of bonds purchased since April 2019 is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to transparency. This move not only reaffirms the electorate's right to know but also sets a precedent for the necessary scrutiny of political financing mechanisms in the future. It is a clarion call for lawmakers, political parties, and civil society to collaboratively forge pathways that reinforce the foundations of democracy, ensuring that the political arena remains a level playing field, untainted by the shadow of unaccounted wealth. The verdict invites a collective reflection on the kind of democracy we aspire to be—a democracy where the power of ideas triumphs over the influence of money, ensuring that the essence of participatory governance is preserved for generations to come.

Q.8 What real-world implication does the Supreme Court's verdict on electoral bonds suggest?