Review electoral bonds

SC's interim ruling should be a wake-up call

In its interim ruling on the matter pertaining to the use of electoral bonds for funding political parties, the Supreme Court has sided in favour of greater transparency. This is a welcome move. On Friday, the apex court directed all political parties who have received donations through electoral bonds to submit all crucial details — such as those related to the donors, the amounts received as well as the specifics of each donation — to the Election Commission of India in a sealed cover before May 30. The court held back from giving a final verdict because it was of the view that this matter required greater deliberation. The court ruling comes in response to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO, seeking a stay on the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, which was notified by the Centre in January last year. The ADR had argued that amendments carried out in relevant Acts had opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate donati­ons to political parties and anonymous financing by Indian as well as foreign comp­a­­nies, which can have serious repercussions on Indian democracy. However, the ru­ling regime defended the electoral bonds scheme, characterising it as “a pioneering step” to bring in poll reforms, ensuring transparency and accountability in political funding.

However, few are convinced of the government’s argument. The opposition pa­r­ties have said 95 per cent of the electoral bonds had gone to the BJP and ar­g­u­e­d that the “financial dominance” of a single party decimates the very concept of a level playing field, which is at the heart of free and fair elections. But more damaging was the criticism from the country’s Election Commission itself. The EC had opposed the anonymous electoral bonds in an affidavit in 2017. On Wednesday, the poll panel clarified to the Supreme Court that it was not against the bonds, but opposed the principle of anonymity of the bond donor and redeemer. What did not help matters was the government’s desire to protect such anonymity. In­e­­xplicably, the Attorney General of India, K K Venugopal, reportedly told the co­u­rt that “voters don’t need to know where the money of political parties comes from”.

If the electoral bonds scheme has been introduced to bring about greater transparency, the government should not resist allowing details of such donations to be made public. It is well known that the veil of secrecy around electoral funding is one of the main reasons why political corruption sustains in the country, and the electoral bonds do nothing to stop that by allowing complete anonymity of the donor. Since neither the purchaser of the bond nor the political party receiving the donation is required to disclose the donor’s identity, the shareholders of a corporation will remain unaware of the company’s contribution. Voters, too, will have no idea of how, and through whom, a political party has been funded. Indeed, if they are truly serious about transparency, political parties should take the lead by filing their tax returns, and indeed open themselves up to the Right to Information Act. All parties have been united in disregarding the Central Information Commission, which in 2013 had declared the six national parties to be within the ambit of the RTI Act. Party accounts continue to be audited by those appointed by the parties themselves, and regulations stipulating deadlines for submitting donation statements are flouted frequently.