New Delhi: Attorney General R Venkataramani has told the Supreme Court that there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions and it cannot be suggested that “a citizen has a right to information under Article 19(1)(a) regarding funding of political party”, in his response on a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of the Centre's electoral bonds scheme as a source of political funding.
Ahead of the October 31 hearing, before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, the AG urged the apex court not to enter into the policy domain for regulating electoral bonds scheme. “That contribution to political parties has democratic significance and a fit subject for political debate and demand of governance accountability free from influences does not mean that the court will proceed to declare on such matters in the absence of a clear constitutionally offending law”, said the AG’s submissions.
The AG said judgments in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) and Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) were in the context of making informed choices about electoral candidates and knowing their antecedents. He said the information limited to such knowledge serves a specific end of citizens’ choice of electing candidates free from blemish and the right to know for specific rightful expression was thus conceived, and from that it cannot be said that the right to know for general or broad ends necessarily follows. “Therefore, these judgments cannot be read as to suggest that a citizen has a right to information under Art. 19(1)(a) regarding funding of political party. If there is no right under Article 19(1)(a), the further question of locating reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) does not arise”, said the AG’s submissions.
The AG stressed that the scheme does not impinge upon any existing right of any person and cannot be said to be repugnant to any right under Part III of the Constitution, and “in the absence of such repugnance, the scheme will not be illegal”.
He said: “A law which is not so repugnant cannot be voided for any other reason. Judicial review is not about scanning State policies for the purposes of suggesting better or different prescriptions”.
The AG said the petitioners sought a declaration that citizens have a right to know as an aspect/facet of the right to freedom of expression and based on such declaration it is canvassed that the right to have access to the details of contribution to political parties must follow. “Consequently, the confidentiality facilitated under the scheme is said to be impermissible…..Firstly, there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions. Secondly, the right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise”, said the AG’s submissions.
AG said the scheme in question extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor and it ensures and promotes clean money being contributed. It ensures abiding by tax obligations. “Thus, it does not fall foul of any existing right. A constitutional Court reviews State action only if it impinges upon existing rights and not because State action has not provided for a possible right or an expectation howsoever desirable”, he said.
