Parties and roles: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. (Electoral Bonds) is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Electoral bonds allowed eligible donors to buy bearer-like banking instruments and give them to political parties, while the public could not see the donor-recipient link. Related amendments removed or diluted corporate donation caps and disclosure duties. Supporters said banking channels would reduce cash and protect donors from political retaliation. Challengers said secrecy deprived voters of information needed to identify financial influence, while unlimited corporate donations heightened the risk of quid pro quo arrangements. Procedural setting: 2017-2018: Finance Act amendments and the Electoral Bond Scheme introduced anonymous banking instruments for political donations. | 2017 onward: ADR, Common Cause and CPI(M) challenged the scheme. | 31 Oct-02 Nov 2023: Constitution Bench heard final arguments. | 15 Feb 2024: Scheme and enabling amendments struck down. | Mar 2024: Disclosure directions were implemented through SBI and the Election Commission. The central problem before the Court was did the Electoral Bond Scheme and connected amendments disproportionately restrict voters' right to information? Was donor anonymity justified by privacy and curbing black money? Was removal of the corporate-contribution cap arbitrary? The controversy was considered in the framework of Finance Act, 2017; Representation of the People Act, 1951, s.29C; Companies Act, 2013, s.182; Income-tax Act, 1961; Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, together with Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a) and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in voters' right to information; proportionality; political equality; manifest arbitrariness; informational privacy; transparency.

Petitioners argued anonymous political funding violated voters' Article 19(1)(a) right to information and that less restrictive methods could address donor privacy and black money. The Union argued donor confidentiality encouraged clean banking-channel contributions and protected political choice and privacy. Competing positions in context: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.'s position: as the petitioner, Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Voters' right to information; proportionality; political equality; manifest arbitrariness; informational privacy; transparency. Union of India & Ors. (Electoral Bonds)'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. (Electoral Bonds) resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Finance Act, 2017; Representation of the People Act, 1951, s.29C; Companies Act, 2013, s.182; Income-tax Act, 1961; Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 and Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a) and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The scheme and key amendments were unanimously struck down. Financial contributions to political parties can influence policy, so meaningful donor information is constitutionally protected political information. Complete anonymity failed proportionality because less restrictive alternatives existed. Allowing unlimited corporate donations was manifestly arbitrary. SBI was directed to stop issuing bonds and disclose purchase and encashment details to the Election Commission for publication. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Voters' right to information; proportionality; political equality; manifest arbitrariness; informational privacy; transparency and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 880/2017 and connected petitions. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Finance Act, 2017; Representation of the People Act, 1951, s.29C; Companies Act, 2013, s.182; Income-tax Act, 1961; Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Finance Act, 2017; Representation of the People Act, 1951, s.29C; Companies Act, 2013, s.182; Income-tax Act, 1961; Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018

Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a) and 21

Voters' right to information; proportionality; political equality; manifest arbitrariness; informational privacy; transparency