Electoral bonds case: Do not nullify past transactions

livemint.com:

electoral bond scheme for political donations as unconstitutional. This has meant serious ramifications for corporate houses that made contributions to political parties based on this scheme and the three statutes which were amended to facilitate it. If transactions done before the ruling are not preserved by the SC, it is going to cause donor companies a lot of hardship.

First, let’s look at what these amendments were and why the scheme was held unconstitutional. A related question also arises: Is the strike-down retrospective or prospective? And, if it is retrospective, what impact will it have on past actions under the scheme by corporates and political parties? The verdict scotched the scheme as it violated Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Simultaneously, four amendments made in three different laws were also struck down as unconstitutional.

These amendments pertained to exemptions given to political parties from publishing details of electoral bond contributions, maintaining records of the same and from disclosing the names and addresses of donors. Another amendment had removed the upper limit for corporate donations to political parties, earlier fixed at 7.5% of the company’s average net profits of the past three years. Perhaps the most telling was an amendment that exempted companies from disclosing the names of political parties favoured by donations in their profit-and-loss statements.

Of all the strike-downs, this one has hit businesses the hardest. A well settled position under Article 13(2) of the Constitution is that the state cannot make any law which takes away or abridges rights given by Part III of the Constitution. If any law is made in contravention of these rights, then to the extent of such a