India’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict on February 15, 2024, declaring the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional. Introduced in 2018 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, the scheme aimed to enhance political funding transparency. However, critics argued it created an opaque system, primarily benefiting the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
A Flawed Attempt at Transparency:
The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled that the scheme violated the citizen’s right to information, enshrined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the RTI extends beyond government affairs, encompassing information crucial for informed electoral choices. He highlighted the need for transparent political party funding, essential for a robust democracy.
The court ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to cease issuing bonds, disclose purchaser identities, and provide details of redeemed bonds to the Election Commission. Additionally, they urged the government to explore alternative solutions to tackle “black money” in political funding.
Arguments and Concerns:
The government defended the scheme, claiming it aimed to eliminate cash donations. However, the court prioritized public accountability. The bonds, anonymous and time-bound, allowed donations from individuals and corporations without revealing identities.
While supporters argued the scheme created traceability and protected donor anonymity, critics contended it wasn’t entirely anonymous. The SBI maintained records, potentially enabling the government to exert influence. The lack of public records about purchasers and recipients raised concerns about opaque funding sources.
Petitioners emphasized the lack of transparency undermined the public’s right to know and fostered corruption. The government countered by citing the need to protect donors from potential retribution.
A Pivotal Moment:
This landmark decision signifies a crucial step towards transparency and accountability. The court prioritized open governance, rejecting secrecy. This ruling has far-reaching implications, likely encouraging alternative funding mechanisms that prioritize transparency while safeguarding citizens’ right to information.
The Disparity and the Precedent:
The scheme saw approximately 160 billion rupees worth of bonds sold, with the BJP receiving 57% compared to the Congress party’s 10%. The court’s decision addresses immediate concerns and sets a precedent for reevaluating and restructuring political funding mechanisms to align with democratic principles.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment, emphasizing transparent and accountable political party funding. As India navigates the aftermath, opportunities arise to reimagine financing mechanisms that uphold democratic ideals of openness and citizen participation.