In this edition of the Court judgements review, we look at SC’s order terming the electoral bonds scheme and all related amendments as unconstitutional, SC’s order that dependents of a deceased person involved in a road traffic accident should not receive double benefits, that elder sister cannot be legal guardian of younger sister unless authorized by competent court, and that breaking up and advising girlfriend to marry as per parent’s advice is not abetment to suicide. SC: Electoral bonds scheme makes funding anonymous which violates the right to information of citizens Electoral bonds are a financial instrument introduced in India to facilitate transparent political funding. They were first announced in the Union Budget of 2017-18 and subsequently notified by the government. The primary purpose of electoral bonds is to ensure that political funding is made through legal and transparent channels, reducing the use of black money in elections. However, in 2017, a case was filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and others challenging the constitutionality of the scheme. A Supreme Court Bench of five judges; Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered a 232-page-long verdict in the case, Association for Democratic Reforms & Another vs Union of India & Others unanimously striking down the scheme. Some of the reasons cited by the Bench for the same are listed below: The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to share in the public domain, the details of the buyers of the electoral bonds and the amounts received by political parties since 12 April 2019, once the State Bank of India shares those details with the ECI. The court also stated that the donors can’t claim surprise since they know about the case. SC: Dependents of a deceased person involved in a road traffic accident should not receive double benefits In Krishna & Others vs. Tek Chand & Others, the family of a deceased Haryana State Roadways driver, seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, had their claim rejected by the Tribunal. The rejection was based on the family’s eligibility for Rs. 31 lakhs under the Haryana government’s compassionate assistance policy, which exceeded their compensation entitlement. The High Court upheld this decision, resulting in the family being entitled to receive Rs. 3 lakhs after deducting the government policy amount from the total compensation claimed. The appellants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed a Special Leave Appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih relied on a 2016 judgment that held that an employer’s ex-gratia payment to the deceased employee’s family should be deducted from the compensation. The court added that when someone dies in a car accident due to someone else’s fault, their family gets compensation for their loss. It added that this compensation shouldn’t be given twice or be more than what’s fair. It means if someone dies in a car accident, their family shouldn’t get more money than the family of someone who died from an illness or another cause, according to the rules of the Haryana Government. The court thus declined the petition. SC: Elder sister cannot be legal guardian of younger sister unless authorized by competent court The case, Rita Dwivedi vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, involves three sisters. One of them filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh. She’s asking the court to produce Vibha Dwivedi. The petitioner claims that Vibha Dwivedi was taken to Canada illegally by Archana Sharma along with her husband. Since the High Court dismissed the petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar held that an elder sister does not have a legal right to exercise guardianship except when there is an order by a competent Court. The bench dismissed the petitioner’s case, stating that they did not believe that filing a writ petition for Habeas Corpus relief was the appropriate legal action to address the petitioner’s concerns. Nevertheless, the court allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to seek guardianship if the facts of the case justify such legal action. SC: Breaking up and advising girlfriend to marry as per parent’s advice is not abetment to suicide In the case, Prabhu vs. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police & Another, a young woman in Tamil Nadu committed suicide following her boyfriend’s advice that she marry according to her parents’ wishes.