Petitioner argues anonymous cash donations under Rs 2,000 undermine transparency in elections.
The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Monday challenging Income Tax Act provisions allowing political parties to receive anonymous cash donations under Rs 2,000, seeking enhanced transparency in political funding.
AI-generated summary
The petition references the Supreme Court's 2024 verdict striking down the electoral bonds scheme.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea on Monday challenging the validity of a provision of the Income Tax Act that allows political parties to receive anonymous cash donations of less than Rs 2,000. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is likely to hear the matter.
The petitioner, Khem Singh Bhati, has argued that anonymous cash donations undermine transparency in elections by denying voters information about the source of political funding and the motives of donors. The plea has sought the striking down of Clause (d) of Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unconstitutional.
"The petitioner is seeking direction that the political parties must disclose the name and all other particulars of the person paying any amount of money to it, and no amount can be received in cash so as to maintain transparency in the political funding," the plea, filed said. The petitioner has referred to the Supreme Court's 2024 verdict striking down the electoral bonds scheme, arguing that political funding must remain transparent.
Plea seeks EC, CBDT scrutiny of party finances The plea has sought directions to the Election Commission to scrutinise Form 24A contribution reports of recognised political parties and take action against parties that fail to provide complete donor details, including addresses and PAN information.
It has also sought independent audits of political party accounts and action under the Election Symbols Order, 1968, against defaulting parties.
The petitioner has further urged the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to scrutinise the income tax returns and audit reports of political parties for the past five years and initiate tax, penalty or prosecution proceedings for violations of Section 13A of the Income Tax Act read with Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Supreme Court bench hears the plea challenging Clause (d) of Section 13A
Very likely · Within days
Odisha government ordered automatic alimony deductions from salaries of state employees defying court-mandated maintenance orders for estranged wives and children.
Jharkhand government will allow selected prisoners at four central jails to work outside during the day through open and semi-open barracks to support families and aid social reintegration.
The Patna High Court ruled on April 20, 2026, that a 2005 Bihar government policy extending family pensions for government employees killed in violent acts cannot be applied retrospectively to deny the widow of a sub-inspector who died in a 2003 naxalite bomb blast her claim for pension beyond the original seven-year term, upholding the principle that executive policies are presumed prospective unless expressly stated otherwise.
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench criticized Nagpur Municipal Corporation officials for claiming ignorance of the Supreme Court's Bulldozer judgement, noting even laymen are aware of it, and directed them to file affidavits by September 4 clarifying their stance on the demolition notice issued in the Mahal riots case.
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra FDA to withdraw enforcement orders against five MCA restaurants in Mumbai and a Cipla facility in Pune, citing improper procedures, lack of natural justice, and repeated regulatory overreach, prompting the FDA to vacate suspension and licence cancellation orders.
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a petition challenging Maharashtra's Marathi language requirement for commercial drivers after the state extended the deadline for learning the language by a year.