ELECTORAL BONDS

Electoral Bonds emerged as a means of funding for political parties in India starting from 2017 until they were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on February 15, 2024. This decision followed a directive by a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, instructing the State Bank of India to disclose donor and recipient details to the Election Commission of India, which were subsequently made public.

Introduced in The Finance Bill, 2017 during the Union Budget 2017-18 by then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Electoral Bonds bypassed certain parliamentary scrutiny processes, drawing allegations of constitutional violation. Despite being proposed in early 2017, the Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 was officially notified by the Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry Of Finance on January 2, 2018. Subsequently, a significant volume of electoral bonds, valued at ₹9,857 crore, were transacted between March 2018 and April 2022.

Amendments to the Electoral Bond scheme in November 2022 extended the sale period to 85 days in a year with scheduled assembly elections. However, opposition parties, including the Congress and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), voiced strong objections to the scheme.

The Supreme Court's verdict in February 2024 invalidated the Electoral Bond scheme, citing violations of the Right to Information (RTI) and voters' rights to political funding information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also highlighted concerns regarding potential quid pro quo arrangements between corporations and politicians.

Features of Electoral Bonds included their function as interest-free banking instruments, accessible to Indian citizens or registered organizations following KYC norms. Bonds could be purchased through cheques or digital payments in specific denominations from designated SBI branches, with redemption within 15 days to legally registered political parties securing at least 1% of the votes in the last election.

The scheme's anonymity feature, devoid of donor and recipient identification, raised concerns about transparency. Unredeemed bonds beyond the stipulated deadline would result in funds being directed to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

The objective behind Electoral Bonds was to enforce transparent political funding by routing donations exceeding ₹2,000 through the banking system, thereby enhancing traceability and preventing the creation of illegal funds. Investigations revealed illicit diversion of public funds into the political domain, prompting measures to curb "black money" in electoral processes.

In conclusion, the Electoral Bond scheme, once hailed as a reformative step, faced legal scrutiny and eventual rejection by the Supreme Court, underlining the critical need for transparent and accountable political funding mechanisms.

UPSC Prelims 2023 Question:

In essence, what does ‘Due Process of Law’ mean?

(a) The principle of natural justice
(b) The procedure established by law
(c) Fair application of law
(d) Equality before law

Correct Answer : Option (c) Fair application of law

Explanation:

The difference between “procedure established by law” and “due process of law” is that under the former only the decisions of the executive will be tested by the courts with the touchstone of fairness but under the latter, the courts will examine the fairness of not only the decisions of the executive but also that of a law passed by the legislature.

Due Process of Law

Due process of law is a legal principle that requires governments to follow fair and reasonable procedures when depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property. It also requires governments to pass laws that are just, fair, and reasonable.

The Supree Court of India has the power to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate due process of law. This means that the Court can strike down laws that are unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.

The phrae “due process of law” is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Indian Constitution, but it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. This means that the government cannot deprive individuals of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The concept of due process of law is borrowed from the US Constitution, but it has been adapted to the Indian context. In India, due process of law is not only a protection against arbitrary executive action, but also against arbitrary legislative action. This means that the Supreme Court can strike down laws that it finds to be unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.

Global IAS Test Series : Online & offline

THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

There are two broad truths that underlie the farmers’ agitation this time as well as the one that took place in 2020-21. First, they point to a crisis of incomes in agriculture of varying degrees across regions (the NSS’ 77th Round on ‘Situational Assessment of Agricultural Households’ bears this out) — even if one presumes that the agitating wheat and paddy farmers of Punjab and Haryana are better off than the rest.

Second, the demands of the agitators — basically, a ‘legally guaranteed minimum support price’ at a much higher level — do not at all address the income problems in Green Revolution areas or in the rest of the country. It is not clear what the protestors mean by a legal guarantee for MSP, beyond the assurance that only an Act of Parliament can repeal it. If it is supposed to be a guarantee that all the output of the 23 crops will be purchased at MSP, that is patently absurd. For wheat and paddy, a de facto guarantee to procure all the produce within a stipulated period after harvest is already in force. With the Centre now committed to supply free rice and wheat to 81.35 crore people for five years, the procurement of wheat and rice will be robust.

In order words, there is an implicit quantity guarantee — which really means that asking for a price guarantee (a higher price based on comprehensive cost, or C2, plus 50 per cent) as well is unreasonable.

The MSP for these two crops is expected to rise anyway to ensure extra output. It is also important to separate wheat and paddy from the other 21 crops which are under MSP, but in practice are governed almost wholly by market forces.

Price support could make sense in pulses and oilseeds where self sufficiency is a national priority — but in the form of price stabilisation rather than a procurement guarantee. The income concerns of Green Revolution farmers have different roots.

Their bane is the high input, low productivity agriculture trap (the yield in Green Revolution areas such as Punjab and Haryana has dropped over decades, with the soil nutrients having been depleted with intensive inputs), which is best addressed by changes in cropping pattern and methods of cultivation. As agriculture economist Ashok Gulati has argued, the subsidies on power and fertilizer (₹2.78-lakh crore, all-India) should be collapsed into an income and investment support package that is linked to a shift to high value, export oriented crops in Punjab, while inputs are provided at market prices to prevent misuse of water, fertilizer and power.

A viable price support mechanism for farmers is to revive futures, so that sowing decisions are based on future rather than last year’s prices. To this end, the e-NAM, warehouse infrastructure and forward delivery contracts need to be a focus area. Farmer Producer Organisations can act as participants and aggregators. The mistakes of the past in going this route can be easily avoided. Hedging price risks in agri commodities is better done through financial market instruments rather than through government.

This article will describe in detail the Surrogacy Regulation Bill (2019).

These UPSC Notes on the surrogacy bill and its concerns are aligned with the UPSC Syllabus and aspirants should prepare this topic for General Studies Paper I.

The Lok Sabha passed the Surrogacy Regulation Bill (2019). The issue of surrogacy is often seen in the news hence the topic’s relevance for the UPSC Mains. IAS Exam aspirants can find more notes for UPSC Mains General Studies topics from the links given at the end of the article.

The Lok Sabha passed the Surrogacy Regulation Bill (2019). The issue of surrogacy is often seen

Analysis of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill

• The Bill defines surrogacy as a practice in which a woman gives birth to a child for an intending couple with the intention of handing over the child after birth to the intending couple.


• The Bill bans commercial surrogacy, but it does allow altruistic surrogacy. Altruistic surrogacy does not involve monetary compensation to the surrogate mother other than the medical expenses and insurance coverage during the course of the pregnancy. Commercial surrogacy is surrogacy or such related procedures undertaken for a monetary reward or benefit (in cash or in-kind) apart from the basic medical expenses and insurance coverage.


• Surrogacy is allowed when it is:
  (i) for intending couples who suffer from proven infertility;
  (ii) altruistic;
  (iii) not for commercial purposes;
  (iv) not for producing children for sale, prostitution or other forms of exploitation; and
  (v) for any disease or condition specified through regulations.


• The intending couple should have the following issued by the appropriate authority:
  • Certificate of essentiality
  • Certificate of eligibility


• A certificate of essentiality will be issued if the following conditions are fulfilled:
  • A certificate of proven infertility of 1 or both members of the intending couple from a District Medical Board;
  • An order of parentage and custody of the surrogate child passed by a Magistrate’s court; and
  • Insurance coverage for sixteen months that cover postpartum delivery complications for the surrogate mother.


• The certificate of eligibility to the intending couple will be issued upon fulfilment of the following conditions:
  • The couple should be Indian citizens and married for at least 5 years;
  • The wife should be between 23 and 50 years old and the husband should be between 26 and 55 years old;
  • The couple does not have any surviving child (biological, adopted or surrogate); this would not include a child who is mentally or physically challenged or suffers from life-threatening disorder or fatal illness; and
  • Other conditions that may be specified by regulations.
  


• To obtain a certificate of eligibility from the appropriate authority, the surrogate mother has to be:
  • A close relative of the intending couple;
  • A married woman with her own child;
  • 25 to 35 years old;
  • A surrogate only once in her lifetime; and
  • Having a certificate of medical and psychological fitness for surrogacy.
  • Further, the surrogate mother cannot offer her own gametes for surrogacy.


• Surrogacy clinics can undertake surrogacy procedures only if they are registered by the appropriate authority. Clinics must apply for registration within sixty days from the date of appointment of the appropriate authority.


• The central government shall constitute the National Surrogacy Board (NSB) and the state governments shall constitute the State Surrogacy Boards (SSB).


• Functions of the NSB include the following:
  • Advising the union govt. on policy matters relating to surrogacy;
  • Establishing a code of conduct for surrogacy clinics; and
  • Supervising the functioning of SSBs.


• The offences under the Bill include:
  (i) undertaking or advertising commercial surrogacy;
  (ii) exploiting the surrogate mother;
  (iii) abandoning, exploiting or disowning a surrogate child; and
  (iv) selling or importing human embryo or gametes for surrogacy. The penalty for such offences is imprisonment up to ten years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees. The Bill also specifies a range of offences and penalties for other contraventions of its provisions.

• A UN-backed study conducted in July 2012 put the surrogacy business at over $400 million with more than 3000 fertility clinics all over the country. Foreign nationals, who want to escape tough surrogacy laws in their own countries, come to India in search of poor vulnerable women, who can be used for renting their wombs to produce a baby for a petty amount of money very easily in the absence of regulations. The global surrogacy trade has become embroiled in many scandals.


• This regulation tries to put an end to some of the problems related to surrogacy. However, concerns remain that due to these regulations a black market might be created of willing women who may not have received approval from any appropriate authority.