The petitioners have instituted proceedings under Art. 32 of the Constitution  challenging the constitutional validity of the Electoral  Bond Scheme, which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties. The petitioners have also challenged the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017  which among other things, amended the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, (S.135 of the Finance Act, 2017 “RBI Act “), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (S. 137 of the Finance Act, 2017 ; “RPA”) the IT Act, 1961 (S. 11 of the Finance Act, 2017 ; IT Act “) and the Companies Act, 2013)(S. 154 of the Finance Act, 2017 ; “ Companies Act “). Court held that,   Electoral Bond Scheme does not fulfil the least restrictive means test. The Electoral Bond Scheme is not the only means for curbing black money in electoral finance. There are other alternatives which substantially fulfil the purpose and impact the right to information minimally when compared to the impact of electoral bonds on the right to information. Financial contributions to political parties are usually made for two reasons. First they may constitute an expression of support to the political party and second, the contribution may be based on a quid pro quo. The law as it currently stands permits contributions to political parties by both corporations and individuals. The huge political contributions made by corporations and companies should not be allowed to conceal the reason for financial contributions made by another section of the population: a student, a daily wage worker, an artist, or a teacher. When the law permits political contributions and such contributions could be made as an expression of political support which would indicate the political affiliation of a person, it is the duty of the Constitution to protect them. Not all political contributions are made with the intent of attempting to alter public policy. Contributions are also made to political parties which are not substantially represented in the legislatures. Contributions to such political parties are made purely with the intent of expressing support. At this juncture, the close association of money and politics needs to be recounted. Money is not only essential for electoral outcomes and for influencing policies. It is also necessary for true democratic participation. It is necessary for enhancing the number of political parties and candidates contesting the elections which would in-turn impact the demographics of representatives in the assembly. It is true that contributions made as quid pro quo transactions are not an expression of political support. However, to not grant the umbrella of informational privacy to political contributions only because a portion of the contributions is made for other reasons would be impermissible. The Constitution does not turn a blind eye merely because of the possibilities of misuse. Accordingly the Court held that Electoral Bond Scheme, the proviso to section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 19951  (as amended by S. 137 of the Finance Act, 2017, S. 182 (3) of the Companies Act  (as amended by S. 154 of the Finance Act, 2017) and S. 13A(b) of the IT Act  (as amended by S.11 of the Finance Act, 2017) are violative of Art. 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional ; deletion of the proviso to S.182(1) of the Companies Act permitting unlimited corporate contributions to political parties is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14.