This paper examines the constitutional issues raised in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India with a primary focus on changes that impact the transparency of political funding. The removal of limits on corporate donations as outlined in Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, combined with the introduction of the Electoral Bond Scheme, which allows donations to remain anonymous, has sparked concerns about fairness and transparency in elections. The confidentiality of the scheme stops the public from knowing who donates, which limits what voters can access. Petitioners argued these changes violate the promise of equality under Article 14 and Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, protecting free speech and the right to information. The Court examined whether unlimited corporate funding, combined with forced secrecy, undermines democratic values by creating opportunities for undue influence and reducing transparency during elections. Using constitutional principles such as proportionality and balancing conflicting rights, the Court attempted to weigh the right of voters to know against the privacy of donors. The analysis found that alternatives already exist such as Section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act which requires parties to disclose donations exceeding twenty thousand rupees, thereby offering a better balance between privacy and openness. Ultimately, the Court ruled that amendments permitting unrestricted corporate donations and concealing donor identities through the Electoral Bond Scheme infringe upon fundamental rights. The verdict highlighted the importance of voters having access to relevant information and warned against unchecked financial power in politics and reaffirming the commitment of the Constitution to fair elections.