On February 15, the top court had unanimously quashed the Electoral Bonds Scheme.

The electoral bonds scheme allowed donors to anonymously send funds to a political party after buying bearer bonds from the State Bank of India (SBI).

An electoral bond was an instrument in the nature of a promissory note or bearer bond which could be purchased by any individual, company, firm or association of persons provided the person or body is a citizen of India or incorporated or established in India.

The bonds, which were in multiple denominations, were issued specifically for the purpose of contributing funds to political parties in its existing scheme.

Electoral bonds were introduced through the Finance Act, 2017, which in turn amended three other statutes - the RBI Act, the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act - to enable the introduction of such bonds.

The 2017 Finance Act introduced a system by which electoral bonds could be issued by any scheduled bank for the purpose of electoral funding. The Finance Act was passed as a money bill, which meant that it did not require the assent of the Rajya Sabha.

Various petitions were filed before the top court challenging at least five amendments made to different statutes through the Finance Act, 2017 on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties.

The petitions also raised the ground that the Finance Act could not have been passed as a money bill.

The Court on February 15 quashed the scheme as well as amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act, which had made the donations anonymous.

The Court also directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to submit details of political parties that have received contributions through electoral bonds from April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Court held that the Electoral Bonds scheme, due to its anonymous nature, was violative of the right to information and thus hits the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Subsequently, a review petition was filed against verdict.

PIL on criteria for determination of Minority status: SC seeks views of Attorney General