The Supreme Court is expected to release its decision regarding the legality of the electoral bond scheme, which has been subject to a series of petitions questioning its validity. The bond scheme permits individuals and companies to acquire bonds for political donations, offering beneficiaries tax exemptions and the chance to remain anonymous. However, critics assert that the scheme encourages corruption and disregards the principles of transparency and accountability in political funding. They argue that the anonymity provided by the scheme allows for the possibility of undisclosed and illicit contributions to political parties, undermining the democratic process. Transparency advocates contend that political funding should be a transparent and accountable practice, as it influences political decisions and the outcome of elections. They argue that the electoral bond scheme is in conflict with these principles, as it allows for undisclosed donations and circumvents existing transparency regulations. The scheme’s supporters, on the other hand, claim that it serves to protect the privacy and security of political donors, preventing their information from being misused or leaked. They argue that the scheme encourages greater participation in political funding by providing tax incentives and preserving the anonymity of donors who may fear potential reprisals or bias. The argument for upholding the electoral bond scheme centers around striking a balance between transparency and privacy in political funding. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is highly anticipated, as it will shape the future of political funding and its regulation in the country.