Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 and connected matters.
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra (five-judge Constitution Bench).
Date of judgment: 15 February 2024.

The Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018 was introduced through amendments to the Finance Act, 2017, which in turn modified the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Companies Act, 2013, and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The scheme allowed:

• Any individual or company to purchase bearer bonds from the State Bank of India in denominations up to Rs 1 crore.
• The bonds were redeemable only by registered political parties within fifteen days.
• The scheme exempted political parties from disclosing the names of donors who gave through this route.
• Companies could contribute without disclosure obligations under the Companies Act for electoral bonds.

ADR and other petitioners challenged the scheme on multiple grounds, principally Article 19(1)(a) — the voter's right to know the source of political funding.

The Court held that the right to information about political funding is an integral facet of the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). A voter's ability to evaluate a political party — its likely policies, its likely capture by donor interests — depends on access to funding information.

The State argued that donor anonymity was necessary to protect donors from retaliation. The Court applied the Puttaswamy proportionality test and rejected this justification — donor anonymity in political funding is not the same as privacy of personal data. The scheme failed the least-restrictive-alternative leg of the test.

The Court directed the State Bank of India to disclose all electoral bond data to the Election Commission of India, which was in turn directed to publish the data on its website. This operational direction produced the widely-discussed public release in March 2024.

• Article 19(1)(a) foundation reaffirmed. The RTI Act, 2005 is rooted in this fundamental right. The Electoral Bonds judgment re-anchors that link.
• Public interest in institutional integrity. Where RTI applicants argue that disclosure serves democratic accountability, the Electoral Bonds reasoning is directly on point.
• Privacy is not a one-way shield. Even after Puttaswamy, privacy does not automatically defeat transparency claims. The proportionality test runs both ways.

• The RTI Act, 2005 — current text. Preamble and Article 19(1)(a) basis.
• Public interest.
• Privacy under RTI.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) — privacy framework.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — disclosure default.
• A decade of change, 2015 to 2025.
• Case law library.

The Electoral Bonds judgment operates at the constitutional level — Article 19(1)(a) — and is unaffected by the DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j). Its reasoning in fact strengthens the transparency side of the post-DPDP balancing under Section 8(2).

1. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) 880 of 2017 and connected matters, Supreme Court of India, decided 15 February 2024.
2. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a).
3. The Finance Act, 2017; Companies Act, 2013; Representation of the People Act, 1951; Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

20 April 2026