QUICK OVERVIEW
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of anonymous political donations under ₹2000—an issue central to political transparency and electoral accountability. Another major governance issue raised today involves the Supreme Court’s concern over persistent custodial violence and poor compliance with its earlier orders on installing CCTV cameras in police stations. Both matters underline India’s struggle with transparency, accountability, and citizen rights.
Supreme Court to Review Anonymous Political Donations
Why in News?
The Supreme Court will review a petition challenging the rule that allows political parties to receive anonymous cash donations below ₹2000, which activists argue enables opaque, untraceable, and potentially corrupt political funding.
Concerns Highlighted in the Petition
1. Total Ban on Cash Donations
The petition seeks a ban on all cash donations, including those under ₹2000 allowed by Section 13A(d) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that they allow anonymity and evade transparency.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Section 13A(d) allegedly violates Article 19(1)(a), which includes citizens' Right to Information regarding political funding.
3. Directions on Form 24A
It demands that the Election Commission:
Strictly scrutinise Form 24A donation reports.
Reject contributions without donor identity (PAN/address).
Suspend or withdraw political party symbols for non-compliance.
4. Further Reforms Sought
Independent auditors appointed by ECI.
Timely submission of audit and contribution reports.
Existing Rules on Political Donations
Representation of People Act, 1951
Section 29B allows voluntary contributions from individuals and non-government, non-foreign companies.
Companies Act, 2013
Companies older than three years may donate up to 7.5% of average net profits over three years.
Income Tax Act, 1961
Donations to political parties are tax-deductible under Sections 80GGB/80GGC.
FCRA, 2010
Foreign donations are banned, but Indian companies with foreign shareholding are not considered foreign sources under amended definitions.
Electoral Trusts Scheme, 2013
Electoral trusts:
Cannot accept cash.
Must distribute 95% of received funds to eligible parties.
Retain up to 5% for admin expenses.
Why Transparency in Political Funding Matters
1. Helps Voters Make Informed Choices
Voters have a constitutional right to know who funds political parties (ADR rulings 2002 & 2024).
2. Prevents Policy Bias & Quid Pro Quo
Opaque funding creates dependence and policy manipulation.
3. Protects National Security
Anonymous funding creates avenues for foreign influence.
4. Prevents Crony Capitalism
Corporate opacity distorts markets and stifles fair competition.
5. Upholds Egalitarian Democracy
Without transparency, democracy risks turning into plutocracy.
6. Aligns India with Global Standards
Countries like the US mandate strict disclosure for over a century.
Reforms Required for Transparent Political Funding
1. Full Ban on Anonymous Cash Donations
Amend Section 13A(d) to eliminate or drastically reduce the ₹2000 limit.
2. Strengthened ECI Powers
De-register non-compliant parties.
Independent auditors.
STRONGER oversight by RBI & SEBI.
3. Real-Time Disclosure Portal
A unified, ECI-maintained donor database with automatic tax-record verification.
4. Structural Reforms
Partial state funding for elections.
National expenditure limits.
Mandatory digital donation systems.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s review is a pivotal moment for India’s electoral reforms. Ensuring transparency, eliminating anonymous cash loopholes, enforcing real-time disclosures, and strengthening institutional oversight are essential for protecting democracy, curbing corruption, and enabling informed voter decisions.
Custodial Violence in India
The Supreme Court revisited custodial torture issues after noting poor implementation of its 2020 CCTV mandate and reports of 11 custodial deaths in eight months in Rajasthan.
What is Custodial Violence?
Custodial violence refers to physical, mental, or sexual harm inflicted on persons in police or judicial custody. It includes torture, harassment, unlawful confinement, and custodial deaths.
Under BNSS 2023:
Police custody: Up to 15 days.
Judicial custody: Until bail or sentence.
Historical Context of Custodial Abuse
Ancient & Medieval India: Harsh corporal punishment (Arthashastra, Shariat).
Colonial Era: Police Act 1861 created coercive policing.
Post-Independence: Outdated laws persisted; modernisation lacked; custodial torture continued.
NHRC (2023–24):
2,346 judicial custodial deaths
160 police custodial deaths
Constitutional & Legal Safeguards
Constitution
Article 21: Right to life and dignity.
Article 20(1): No excessive or retrospective punishment.
Article 20(3): Protection from self-incrimination.
Legal Codes (2023 Reforms)
BNS: Punishes violence used to extract confessions.
BNSS: Mandates lawful arrest procedures.
BSA: Invalidates forced or coerced confessions.
International Norms
ICCPR (India ratified 1979).
UDHR (1948).
UNCAT (yet to be ratified).
Judicial Directives
DK Basu (1997): Guidelines on arrest & detention.
Paramvir Singh Saini (2020): Mandatory CCTV in all police stations & investigative agencies.
Nambi Narayanan (2018): Compensation for wrongful arrest.
Challenges in Ending Custodial Violence
1. Weak Legal Framework
No dedicated anti-torture law; colonial policing persists.
2. Low Accountability
Government sanction required for prosecution; inquiries weak.
3. Punitive Police Culture
Third-degree methods seen as acceptable shortcuts.
4. Lack of Training & Forensics
Police rely on physical coercion rather than scientific investigation.
5. Delayed Justice
Slow courts, poor oversight, weak implementation of CCTV orders.
Measures Needed
1. Define Custodial Torture in Law & Ratify UNCAT
Criminalise torture with strict penalties.
2. Strengthen Accountability
Independent investigation of custodial deaths; remove prior sanction requirement.
3. Reform Policing
Modernise police forces, scientific investigation, human-rights training.
4. Ensure Technology-Based Oversight
Functional CCTV with audio, body cams, and digital monitoring.
5. Fast-Track Courts
Speedy justice for custodial abuse cases.
Conclusion
Ending custodial violence requires structural police reforms, strict legal protections, technological oversight, and a rights-based approach. Transparent policing and accountability are essential for upholding Article 21 and restoring public trust.
CLAT / EXAM RELEVANCE SUMMARY
Supreme Court powers under Articles 32 & 142
Electoral reforms: Section 13A, RPA 1951, FCRA, Electoral Trusts
Right to Information as part of Article 19(1)(a)
Custodial torture: Article 21, DK Basu guidelines, BNSS provisions
Governance, transparency, accountability
Landmark cases (ADR 2002, ADR 2024, Paramvir Singh Saini, DK Basu)