In a decision that would have far-reaching consequences on the political landscape of India, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme notified by the government on January 2, 2018, by declaring it unconstitutional, violative of the right to information of citizens and giving scope for a possible quid pro quo by the larger corporations. Lest we forget, in April 2019 the apex court had declined to stay the same scheme on the premise that there is a need to reduce the flow of cash into elections.
The five-judge constitution bench held that information about funding to a political party is essential for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote effectively. The scheme, by giving anonymity to contributions through electoral bonds is seen as a means through which corporates use their financial might to influence policy decisions.
The court may have now set a level-playing and restored the right of voters to know, but a six-year delay in adjudicating the issue from the time electoral bonds were introduced in 2018 is unfortunate because it will be seen as a phase when a constitutional breach passed muster. The question is why should parties not be asked to furnish all such information with retrospective effect since the court has struck it down? The names of donors from 2018 should be made public.
As per data furnished by the Association for Democratic Reforms, BJP received 57 per cent of the nearly Rs 16,000 crore donations made through the Electoral Bonds Scheme between 2018 and 2022. By law donations above Rs 20,000 have to be declared and cannot be kept anonymous. Interestingly, 94 per cent of the contributions came from electoral bonds of Rs 1 crore denominations indicating that these came from corporate sources.
While the BJP, which cornered a chunk of the donations, could be a big loser since the donors may now be shying away because of veil of secrecy has been lifted, the Opposition parties could be equally hit, if not more, with their paltry flow expected to dwindle even further making it difficult for them to navigate the electoral path with dwindling coffers. Take note, that electoral battles in modern times are largely about money and power and less about ideologies and other attributes.
While the court verdict was the need of the hour because of the increasing flow of money into elections, and especially because the nation is heading into an all-important Lok Sabha election, it is to be seen whether voting patterns, party approaches and corporate affiliations would change.
Electoral bonds per se may not be a bad concept, but the secrecy clause that is attached to it has changed the equation by violating the very precincts of democratic reasonability. The electoral bonds scheme in its existing form disavows and annuls the rights of voters. The objectives of the right to privacy and incentivising donations to political parties through banking channels cannot justify the infringement it is causing on the rights of voters.
Between the right of citizens to know and the right to privacy of donors, the former has prevailed. The arguments for using the scheme as a weapon against those indulging in political vindictiveness and also an attempt to reduce the use of cash in elections cannot be held above the voter’s right to know.
