Supreme Court Hears Case on Electoral Bonds: Transparency vs. Anonymity

“All You Need to Know About the Electoral Bonds Row at the Supreme Court”

The Supreme Court has recently taken up a case regarding electoral bonds which have become a contentious issue due to concerns of transparency and secrecy. This issue has come to the forefront because of donations made to political parties through these bonds, which were introduced by the government via the Finance Act, 2017. In light of the upcoming general elections, understanding the electoral bond scheme and the arguments around it is crucial for all citizens.

Introduction of Electoral Bonds

Electoral bonds were introduced as an alternative to cash donations by the government in an attempt to ensure transparency in political funding. These bonds, issued by the State Bank of India (SBI), are financial instruments that can be purchased by any Indian citizen or corporate entity. The bonds can then be donated to any eligible political party which can be cashed through a registered bank account within a prescribed time limit.

Secrecy and Transparency Concerns:

The central issue around electoral bonds is that the anonymity of donors breaches the principle of transparency in political funding. Without proper disclosure of donor information, there is a significant risk of money laundering and other illegal activities. The government has claimed that the scheme of electoral bonds offers anonymity to donors to prevent them from facing repercussions for their political affiliations. However, this case makes the argument that this can lead to electoral fraud and funneling of unaccounted money into the political system.

Violation of Privacy:

The petitioners challenging the electoral bond scheme have invoked their fundamental right to privacy, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. They have argued that the government’s promise of anonymity has allowed for unlimited and unchecked donations, which infringe upon the right to privacy as it results in surveillance of electoral behavior. This, in turn, affects the citizens’ ability to make a well-informed decision during elections, which is a crucial element of democracy.

Violation of Democratic Structure:

Another argument against the introduction of electoral bonds is that by removing the disclosure of donor information, the government has disrupted the democratic structure of the country. Disclosure of donors’ identities is critical to ensure transparency in the political financing system and to maintain accountability of political parties to their donors and the public. In the absence of disclosure, the phenomena of “proxy donations” cannot be excluded, which leads to vested interest and undemocratic control of political parties.

Importance of Transparency:

Transparency in the political system is imperative to the functioning of a democracy. It facilitates citizens’ right to know and understand the structure of the government, the decision-making processes, and the utilization of their tax money. Furthermore, transparency promotes accountability and helps citizens in exercising their right to hold representatives accountable. The removal of disclosure requirements for electoral bonds goes against this fundamental principle of transparency in democracy.

Supreme Court’s Position:

The Supreme Court has found that a prima facie case has been made out for directing political parties to disclose all the donations received by them through electoral bonds in a “sealed cover.” However, the court has refrained from passing an interim order in this regard and has instructed to balance the challenging interests by a detailed hearing and not “judicial fiat.” In the event of directions being issued by the court, the government has also been asked to balance the right of anonymity of donors with the constitutional rights and democratic values upheld by this issue.

Conclusion:

The introduction of electoral bonds has thrust political funding into the limelight, making it a topic of intense public discourse. As election season approaches, transparency in the political process becomes more critical than ever. The concerns raised by petitioners regarding the anonymity of donations and its implications on the privacy and democratic structure of the country cannot be overlooked. The case before the Supreme Court holds immense importance, not only as a matter of law but also for its potential impact on the functioning of a democratic society. The court’s decision will impact the democratic values and principles of the country, and therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance between the right to anonymity and the right to democratic transparency.