Question

Which Article was key in striking down Electoral Bonds?

Hint:

Whenever a legal issue concerns political transparency, election funding, or voter awareness, the Supreme Court almost always relies on Article 19(1)(a). It is the backbone of the “right to know” doctrine in election law.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme primarily on the basis of a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The judgment treated *transparency in political funding* as an essential component of this right. 
Here is the expanded and detailed reasoning behind why Article 19(1)(a) was central to the ruling: 
1. Article 19(1)(a) includes the Voter’s Right to Information 
Although Article 19(1)(a) does not explicitly mention a “right to know,” the Supreme Court has interpreted it as part of the broader freedom of speech and expression. 
Key precedents include: 

Union of India v. ADR (2002) – The Court held that voters have a right to know the criminal antecedents, educational qualifications, and assets of electoral candidates. 
PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – It reaffirmed that voters’ right to information flows from Art. 19(1)(a), because political choices cannot be meaningful without adequate information. 
Both cases directly shaped the legal foundation for evaluating the constitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme. 
2. Political Funding Transparency is a Component of Free and Fair Elections 
The Supreme Court has consistently held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975). 
The logic is: 
Free and fair elections require transparency, 
Transparency requires access to information, 
Access to information is part of Article 19(1)(a). 
Therefore, any law that suppresses essential political information must pass the strict standards of Article 19(2). 
3. Electoral Bonds Removed Voters’ Ability to Make an Informed Choice 
The Scheme allowed complete anonymity for donors: 

Citizens could not know who was funding which political party. 
It prevented scrutiny of quid pro quo arrangements. 
It distorted the level playing field because the ruling party received a disproportionately large share of donations. 
The Court observed that political contributions are a form of political expression, and voters have a constitutionally protected right to access this information. 
4. The Scheme Failed the Proportionality Test Under Article 19(2) 
The government argued that donor anonymity was necessary to: 

prevent political victimisation 
encourage clean money 
However, the Court held that: 

there were less restrictive alternatives (such as public disclosure with safeguards), 
anonymity disproportionately harmed voter rights, and 
the restriction on transparency was excessive and unconstitutional. 
Thus, the EBS was not a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19(2). 
5. Art. 19(1)(a) + Basic Structure Doctrine 
Because free and fair elections (basic structure) depend on informed voting (Art. 19(1)(a)), any law that undermines transparency also undermines the basic structure. 
Hence, the Electoral Bonds Scheme was struck down for violating: 

\[\boxed{Article 19(1)(a) – Voter’s Right to Information}\]