New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday refused to grant interim stay on the electoral bonds scheme and asked the petitioner NGO to file an appropriate application for it.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the issue requires detailed hearing and, therefore, it will be taken up on April 10.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), alleged that thousands of crore are anonymously being given to political parties.

He alleged that 95 percent of electoral bonds are being given to the ruling party.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said the electoral bonds scheme was brought to check the flow of black money into political funding.

He said Bhushan was giving an election speech that 95 percent of the electoral bonds have gone to ruling party.

The bench in lighter vein said: "It's election time. We will hear on April 10".

ADR's application has sought stay on the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, which was notified by the Centre in January last year.

It said the amendments carried out in the relevant Acts have "opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate donations to political parties and anonymous financing by Indian as well as foreign companies, which can have serious repercussions on the Indian democracy".

The matter holds importance as the Centre and the Election Commission (EC) have taken contrary stands, with the former justifying the decision saying it would promote transparency in political funding while the latter maintaining that the changes made in the law would have "serious repercussions".

In its affidavit filed on one of the petitions filed by the CPI(M) and its general secretary Sitaram Yechury, the Centre defended its decision to issue electoral bonds, saying it aimed at ensuring "enhanced accountability" and pushing electoral reforms "to defeat the growing menace of black money".

The Centre said the bonds were introduced on January 2, 2018 to promote transparency in funding and donations received by political parties and that these can be encashed by an eligible political party only through their authorised bank accounts.

It said the bonds did not have the name of the donor or the receiving political party and only carried a unique hidden alphanumeric serial number as an in-built security feature.

Only a political party registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and which had secured not less than one per cent of the votes polled in the last election to the Lok Sabha or a legislative assembly, would be eligible to receive the bonds, the Centre had said.

On March 27, the poll panel had informed the apex court that it had written to the Centre saying that the changes made in several laws relating to political funding will have "serious repercussions" on transparency.

It had also said that the changes in the FCRA, 2010 would allow unchecked foreign funding of political parties, which could lead to Indian policies being influenced by foreign companies.

The poll panel said on May 26, 2017, it had written to the Ministry of Law and Justice about its views that the changes made in the Income Tax Act, the Representation of the People Act and the Finance Act would be against the endeavour to have transparency in funding to political parties.

Referring to the EC's communication with the ministry, it said: "It is evident that any donation received by a political party through an electoral bond has been taken out of the ambit of reporting under the contribution report as prescribed under section 29C of the RP Act.

"In a situation where electoral bonds were not reported, it cannot be ascertained whether the political party has taken any donation from government companies and foreign sources."

On February 2 last year, the apex court had sought the Centre's response on a plea moved by the CPI(M), which had termed the issuance of electoral bonds by the government as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Bengaluru: Bengaluru Milk Union Ltd President D.K. Suresh on Monday said it is inappropriate for MLAs to seek free IPL tickets, adding that those interested in watching matches should pay for them personally.

Speaking to reporters near his residence in Sadashivanagar, he said, “IPL is a commercial tournament and does not represent the country. It is not right for public representatives to focus too much on such matters.”

Referring to the recent controversy during the RCB celebrations, he said, “let us find out who benefited the most from the statements made during the incident.” He also pointed out that BJP MLAs had received IPL tickets as well.

Responding to discussions about relocating the Chinnaswamy Stadium, Suresh said the government has already approved the construction of a new stadium at a location he had proposed.

“I had suggested building a stadium in Surya City and submitted a proposal for it. Bengaluru needs four stadiums in four directions to cater to its growing population and encourage youth participation in sports,” he said.

He noted that apart from Kanteerava Stadium, KSCA, and the Football Stadium, there are limited facilities in the city.

“When I was a Lok Sabha member, I had proposed allocating 100 acres in my constituency at Surya City. The land was later earmarked and the plan approved,” he added.

Suresh said he has discussed the project with Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan, Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Chairman Shivalingegowda, and Anekal MLA Shivanna.

“The Cabinet has now approved the project, and a stadium will be developed on around 50–60 acres,” he said.

He further added that he has requested the Deputy Chief Minister to build another stadium at Shivarama Karanth Layout through the BDA, where 40 acres have been allocated. Plans are also being discussed to develop a well-equipped stadium in Bidadi.

Commending state government's recent bilingual policy move, Suresh said forcing children to learn three languages could affect their comprehension.

“It is a good decision to make two languages compulsory. Learning a third language should be left to the choice of students and parents,” he said.

Responding to criticism from BJP leaders, he said their tendency is to oppose every decision of the government.

“To please their central leadership, they take a pro-Hindi stance. Instead, they should advocate for the adoption of Kannada in all states,” he said.

When asked about the earlier three-language policy under Congress, he said, “the situation is different now. Today, the focus should be on quality learning. Kannada should remain the primary language, while students and parents can choose an additional language.”