A Supreme Court ruling canceling electoral bonds for political funding in India has triggered a debate over the rights of donors who donate under anonymity schemes.

After Thursday’s ruling, donors were given legal assurances that their names would not be published when buying electoral bonds, official sources said.

As a result, they can donate to a political party without fear of malicious attacks or defamation by its rivals or its supporters, the source added.

Sources said that from a legal perspective, retroactive declaration of names could be highly suspect.

The Supreme Court order not only labeled electoral bonds as unconstitutional but also directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop issuing electoral bonds and submit details of the bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

“Does (retrospective disclosure of names) violate the rights of donors and Indian citizens, whose operations are based on sovereign legal guarantees? Isn’t there any sanctity in the legal system enacted by Parliament?” said one of the sources.

The scheme, notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was promoted as an alternative to cash donations to political parties in a move aimed at making political funding transparent.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that electoral bonds violated the right to information provided for in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

According to the Bar Association report, the court ordered SBI, the issuing bank of electoral bonds, to provide details of political parties that have received electoral bonds and submit them to the ECI by March 6. ECI will announce such details on its official website by March 13, it added.