Electoral bonds junked: consequences for donor companies

– Payal Agarwal, Senior Manager (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

In a recent Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v/s Union of India, Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS/ Scheme) was declared as unconstitutional, including certain amendments to section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA”), amended vide the Finance Act, 2017 as arbitrary and violative of the Constitution of India (COI).

Naturally, a question arises: What is wrong? Contributions to political parties? No. It is only the opacity of the recipient which has been hit. Hence, if companies have contributed, they couldn’t have kept a shroud of secrecy over the same.

Two, if companies had to disclose, and the amendments on 2017 are now junked, does it mean companies have to go back and disclose? It doesn’t seem so. In fact, the apex court itself has taken care of the actionables and put the burden of disclosure on the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Corporate houses, apparently, the largest contributors to electoral bonds, have expressed concerns on what will be the implications of the ruling on donor companies. Several questions arise – What has been declared unconstitutional and what is still valid? What would be the fate of the political donations already made? What actionables arise on a company having made donations to political parties through electoral bonds or otherwise? In this write-up, the author has attempted to analyze the same in light of the 232-pager ruling.

Section 182 of CA – Pre and Post Finance Act 2017

In order to understand what has been rendered unconstitutional and why, let us analyse the provisions of section 182 of CA as it stood prior to the amendment pursuant to Finance Act 2017 v/s how it stands today.

ParticularsPosition prior to Finance Act, 2017Position post Finance Act, 2017Whether unconstitutional as per SC ruling?
Limits on political contribution – Proviso to Sec 182(1)Aggregate value of contribution to political parties cannot exceed 7.5% of 3-years’ average net profitsNo maximum limit on political contributionsYes. The SC concluded removal of limits to be “manifest arbitrariness” for removing a classification without recognising the harms thereof.
Disclosure in financial statements – Section 182(3)Contributor company to disclose names of each parties against the total amount contributed to such partiesOnly total amount contributed to be disclosed, without disclosing namesYes. The SC concluded this to be an “essential” information for effective exercise of voting, and hence, non-disclosure as an infringement to the right of information of voter under Article 19(1)(a) of COI
Mode of contribution – Section 182(3A)New insertion pursuant to Finance ActPolitical contributions to be made only through banking channels (account paying cheque/ bank draft/ ECS) and through instruments issued under a scheme for political contributions (electoral bonds)No impact. However, the Electoral Bond Scheme has been declared to be unconstitutional.

Consequences for donor companies

The SC ruling does not declare “political donations” per se as unconstitutional or invalid, what is rendered violative of constitutional rights is the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to section 182 of CA vide Finance Act, 2017 permitting unlimited and anonymous contributions to political parties.

The legal implications of declaring a statute unconstitutional has been discussed in various rulings in the past, such as, re Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, and others. These say the consequences are dealt with by the court only. In the present matter of Electoral Bond Scheme, the SC has directed SBI and the Election Commission of India to disclose the details of contributions received through electoral bonds, and refund the non-encashed amounts to the donor.

In essence it does not seem apt that any burden will be cast upon companies for going by a law which was valid till it was scrapped. Hence, no adverse implications should follow for the donor companies. However, for the sake of its corporate duty, a company which has contributed in the past may now do a disclosure in the forthcoming annual report. Thus, The omission of disclosure of particulars of political donations made along with names of the parties, between FY 2017-18 to FY 2022-23, may be made good by companies in the financial statement for the FY 2023-24 giving details of contribution made along with names of the political parties for each of the previous financial years, along with the current FY 23-24.

Principle of “manifest arbitrariness”

Having reference to various rulings and judicial precedents, the SC has summarized that the doctrine of “manifest arbitrariness” can be imposed to strike down a provision. Such a proposition can be applied where:

  1. the legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing the degrees of harm, and
  2. the purpose is not in consonance with constitutional values.

In the context of permitting unlimited contribution to political parties, on the grounds of removing classification between donations by “individuals” v/s “companies”, or between “loss making companies” and “profit making companies”, the degree of potential harm has been ignored. Section 182 was enacted to curb corruption in electoral financing, however, the amendment allowed companies, incorporated for a specific purpose as per their MoA, to contribute unlimited amounts to political parties without any accountability and scrutiny. This may also facilitate incorporation of “shell companies” solely for the purpose of making such political contributions and permit undue influence of companies in the electoral process, thus violating the principle of free and fair elections and political equality.

The hon’ble SC has ruled the deletion of maximum limit as “violative” of COI and “manifestly arbitrary” for not recognising the degrees of harm in removing the classification between –

  1. Political donations by “companies” and “individuals” where the ability to influence electoral process is much higher with the former, since “Contributions made by individuals have a degree of support or affiliation to a political association. However, contributions made by companies are purely business transactions, made with the intent of securing benefits in return.”
  2. “Profit-making” and “loss-making companies” for the purposes of political contributions, since “it is more plausible that loss-making companies will contribute to political parties with a quid pro quo and not for the purpose of income tax benefits.”

The present SC ruling quashes the anonymous political donations and the amendments in CA permitting unlimited corporate donations to political parties. Political donations are not unconstitutional, however a company, making such donations, shall ensure the same does not result into emptying the resources of the company while also ensuring transparency in disclosure of such political donations in its financial statements for the right of information of the concerned shareholders as well as larger stakeholder and voter base.

LEAP to listing: India permits direct listing of shares overseas through IFSC

MCA & MOF notify rules for the same

– Vinita Nair & Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Indian companies were permitted to raise funds from overseas either pursuant to issue of depository receipts listed overseas or having the non-residents subscribe to issuances made in India or by way of borrowing overseas. As an initiative to provide an avenue to access global capital markets, GoI had announced the decision to ease raising of foreign funds in order to boost foreign investment inflows, unlock growth opportunities and offer flexibility to Indian companies to raise funds. Consequently, an enabling provision for direct listing of prescribed class of securities on permitted stock exchanges in permissible foreign jurisdictions was inserted vide Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Section 23 of Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA, 2013’), that deals with permissible modes of issue of securities, vide notification dated September 28, 2020 and made effective from October 30, 2023. Thereafter, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) notified Companies (Listing of equity shares in permissible jurisdictions) Rules, 2024 (‘LEAP Rules’) effective from January 24, 2024. As listing of shares abroad will result in raising funds from persons resident outside India, Ministry of Finance (‘MoF’) notified FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Amendment Rules, 2024 amending FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) with effect from January 24, 2024. SEBI is also expected to roll out the operational guidelines for listed companies to list their equity shares on permitted stock exchanges.[1]

Additionally, FAQs on direct listing scheme (FAQs) have also been rolled out on January 24, 2024. Further, two of the key recommendations of the working group report on Direct Listing of Listed Indian Companies on IFSC Exchanges submitted in December 2023 was to notify the rules under Section 23 (3) and (4) of CA, 2013 and notify necessary amendments in NDI Rules to permit cross-jurisdiction issuance and trading of equity shares of Indian companies on IFSC exchanges.

Presently, both the LEAP Rules as well as NDI Rules have notified International Financial Services Centre in India (‘Gift City’) as the permissible jurisdiction and India International Exchange and NSE International Exchange as the permissible stock exchange. International Financial Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) had issued the IFSCA (Issuance and Listing of Securities) Regulations, 2021 effective July 19, 2021 (‘IFSC Regulations’) however, in the absence of enabling provision under CA, 2013 and NDI Rules, Indian companies were unable to undertake listing of securities abroad.

In this article we provide an overview of the regulatory regime and deal with the procedural aspect.

Read more

Felicitation Meet and Panel Discussion on Corporate Governance – from 1988 to Now

Register here

Agenda for the Panel Discussion

About the Book

Live on Youtube

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [2.03 MB]

Presentation on Significant Beneficial Owners (for companies & LLPs)

Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [1.34 MB]

Our article corner on SBO: https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-sbos/

Directors’ Responsibility towards Climate Change: Lessons from Recent Litigation

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [466.69 KB]

Online workshop on Significant Beneficial Owners: For Companies and LLPs

Click here to register for the workshop: https://forms.gle/3vdQjaLJY1Sgs4Ps5
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [352.15 KB]

SBOs behind LLPs all set to be surfaced

– Avinash Shetty, Asst. Manager & Hari Dwivedi, Executive (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) in the year 2018, introduced the provision for declaration by individuals identified as Significant Beneficial Owners (‘SBOs’) for companies under section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’). Subsequently, MCA extended the ambit of the said provisions to Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) through notification dated February 11, 2022. However, the notification prompted concerns and queries regarding the implementation of SBO provisions on LLPs. These concerns have been addressed by the recent notification dated  November 9, 2023 (‘LLP SBO Rules’). The rationale behind this extension is to align the framework for identification of SBO’s of LLPs with that of companies.

While the provisions are on similar lines as that brought for companies under the Act, however, the difference is mostly in terms of the manner of determining the SBOs in case of LLPs. In case of LLPs it is calculated based on holding of capital contribution (shares in case of companies), voting rights in respect of management or policy decisions of LLP (shares in case of companies) and right to receive or participate in distributable profits (dividend in case of companies) or any other distribution besides, the right to exercise control or significantly influence in any manner other than direct holdings.

The article explains the requirements of the LLP SBO Rules, obligations of the LLPs, and the actionables to be taken in order to comply with the requirements.

Read more

Mandatory demat for private companies: Highlights of the 27th October notification

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [355.43 KB]

You may also refer to our FAQs, detailed article and YouTube Video

Mandatory conversion of share warrants issued under CA 1956 into demat securities – Snippet on MCA Notification

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [56.11 KB]

You may also refer to our detailed article and youtube video.

FAQs on mandatory demat of securities by private companies

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [203.40 KB]

You may refer to our other FAQs on dematerialization of shares here and you may also refer to our Snippet, detailed article and YouTube Video