New Delhi [India], November 24 : The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a public interest litigation (PIL) plea that sought directions mandating all political parties in India to disclose details of any amount of political funding received by them.
The PIL plea filed by one Khem Singh Bhati has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13A (d) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for political parties to avail fundings to the extent of Rs. 2000 by means of cash payments. Section 13A of the aforesaid Act grants exemption to political parties from being taxed on their income received through contributions.
"The petitioner is also seeking mandamus that the political parties must disclose the name and all other particulars of the person paying any amount of money to it, and no amount can be received in cash so as to maintain transparency in the political funding", the plea reads
As per the plea, the cause of action regarding the said issue arose when political parties filed their incomplete contribution report and audit report in the months of September/November last year and in August this year.
It is further argued in the plea that the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Income Tax Department (ITD) have failed to perform their statutory duties regarding the financial scrutiny of political parties.
"Specifically, both bodies have accepted contribution reports (Form 24A) and audit reports from political parties without proper scrutiny, despite those reports often being incomplete. Key deficiencies include the omission of donor PAN numbers and full bank details (including branch names), and in some cases, delayed filing of reports to the ECI. This neglect by the ECI to initiate proceedings and the ITD7 to levy appropriate taxes/penalties on parties with deficient reports directly violates the legal requirement for transparency and accountability in political funding", the plea states.
Moreover, such a lack of transparency, the plea argues, is in violation of the public's fundamental right to information as a voter, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner stressed that the apex courts' consideration, in this regard, is necessary under Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides that the Court may intervene and issue directions in matters that require the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens.
Initially, the bench was of the view that the petitioner may seek the relief sought in the plea by approaching the High Court that exercises jurisdiction in an area in which a specific political party is functioning.
However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the matter relates to all political parties functioning in India and that the jurisdiction with respect to his plea exceeds such jurisdictional boundaries.
After hearing the counsel briefly, the apex court issued notice to the Centre and the ECI seeking their response to the plea.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan.