Electoral Bonds case: Here's what happened on Day 2 hearing in Supreme Court

livemint.com:

Bar and Bench, the apex bench remarked that anonymity behind political donations under the Electoral Bonds Scheme may have been aimed at preventing repercussions from parties to which a person or entity has not made donations. ALSO READ: Electoral bonds generated donations worth over ₹9,188 crore in last 6 years; BJP emerges as biggest beneficiary 1) Arguing for the petitioners, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria said, as quoted by the legal website, that the scheme demeans transparency and breathes life into opaqueness.

2) He added that subsection 3A to Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 omits the requirement of giving particulars of the amount and the party to which it has been contributed. 3) To which, Justice Khanna said that even if it is deleted, one has to disclose the amount which has to be paid.

4) Arguing on the complete tax exemption under Section 80G (Income Tax Act), Hansaria said a company is only required to disclose in its profit and loss account the total amount contributed by it to a political party, without being required to disclose the name of it. He added that now companies only have to declare that ‘X’ amount has been donated without any details and this makes tracing impossible.

5) Among other things, Hansaria raised concerns as there is no ceiling on the total contribution that can be made. 6) With both Justice Khanna and CJI concerned about the quantum of the donation to be given to a particular political party, SG Mehta said that 'There are no restrictions' and added that like-minded persons can come together and create trust and give collectively.