+ Follow
Photo by Shakeb Tawheed /pexels

On the 15th of February, in what some consider a seismic legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India declared the electoral bonds scheme, designed for election funding, unconstitutional and in violation of both Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution. here I will summarise the  three distinguished individuals to unravel the implications of this ground breaking judgment for our nation's political landscape. First in line is Justice Lokur, a former Chief Justice of multiple High Courts and a seasoned judge of the Supreme Court. Alongside him are Qureshi Sahib, the Chief Election Commissioner with an impressive tenure, and the indomitable Dr Swami, a parliamentarian and minister known for his unignitable presence in political circles.

Commencing the discussion, Justice Lokur hails the judgment as crucial and historic but casts a shadow of concern over its practical implementation post-February 15. His worry lies in the aftermath and the potential imbalance created, considering that the BJP has already amassed a staggering Rs 6566 crores through the now-declared unconstitutional electoral bond scheme. While the scheme's annulment puts an end to future bonds, it has, inadvertently, tilted the political playing field with the ruling party having a colossal financial advantage over the opposition.

Expressing his apprehension, Justice Lokur underscores the significance of the judgment in legal terms but laments the existing disparity. The delay in addressing this matter, he contends, has rendered the exercise somewhat academic, leaving the opposition at a financial disadvantage.

Echoing these sentiments, Dr Swami interjects, emphasizing the importance of timely intervention. He points out that had the case been heard earlier, the current financial windfall enjoyed by political parties, especially the BJP, could have been averted. The delay, according to him, has made the entire legal process appear academic and, to some extent, futile.

Shifting the focus to Qureshi Sahib, the Chief Election Commissioner, reflects on the paradox evident in the government's stance. He recalls the 2017 budget speech where the finance minister acknowledged the imperative of transparent political funding for fair elections. However, subsequent actions contradicted this stance as the government, in the name of transparency, curtailed the reporting limit from Rs 20,000 to keep multi-crore donations secret. Qureshi Sahib decries this move as the most opaque scheme in the history of the country, where non-transparency was legitimized in the guise of transparency.

The discussion takes a turn towards the origins of the electoral bond scheme, with Dr Swami shedding light on the dissenting voices within the government itself. He asserts that both Arun Jaitley and Modi were ardent supporters, despite opposition from the Reserve Bank governor, who subsequently lost his job, and reservations from income tax authorities.

As the conversation unfolds, the stark contrast in the amounts collected by the BJP through electoral bonds becomes apparent, prompting Dr Swami to highlight the government's potential advantage in knowing about opposition funding while keeping its contributions clandestine.

So, the level playing field in our democratic arena seems to have evaporated, leaving behind a perplexing and concerning scenario. The financial juggernaut amassed by the BJP through the electoral bonds scheme stands as a testament to the shifting dynamics of political funding, even more so today than ever before. Let's delve into the intricate dance of numbers and the glaring irregularities that have unfolded.

Image by deccanherald

In the financial odyssey of political contributions, a stark progression emerges. In the pre-electoral bond era of 2017-18, the BJP pocketed 210 crores. Fast forward to 2018-19, and the figure skyrockets to a staggering 1450 crores. The Lok Sabha elections of 2019 witnessed an astronomical leap to 2,555 crores, dwarfing the meagre 317 crores received by the Congress. The subsequent years show a fluctuating pattern, with 2020-21 witnessing a lull in elections and a subsequent dip in funds. However, the total sum amassed by the BJP will culminate at a mind-boggling 6,503.66 crores by 2022-23.

This financial rollercoaster, as you rightly pointed out, unfolds in a shroud of non-transparency. The objections raised by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Election Commission of India echo loudly. The RBI, in no uncertain terms, warned against enabling multiple non-sovereign entities to issue bearer bonds, citing the potential for converting black money into white through cash transactions. The Election Commission, in a strongly worded letter, protested against unlimited corporate funding, anticipating the surge of black money in political funding through shell companies.

The quizzical aspect lies in the government's unyielding stance despite these warnings. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, acknowledges the violation of the Right to Information under Article 19 Money. It raises the pertinent question: Should not the voters have the right to know about the financial intricacies of political funding? The court rightfully points out the violation but seems to hesitate when it comes to expeditiously hearing the challenges posed against such acts.

The opacity surrounding the electoral bonds scheme, coupled with the government's seemingly unchecked influence, raises eyebrows. The Supreme Court, once deemed the guardian angel of our democracy, now stands at a crossroads. The delay in addressing critical issues, coupled with the reluctance to swiftly hear challenges, casts a shadow over the judiciary's role in safeguarding our democratic principles.

As we navigate these convoluted waters, the need for immediate and transparent redressal of these challenges becomes glaringly apparent. The guardians of our democracy, both the Supreme Court and the Election Commission, must reclaim their role as vigilant overseers, ensuring that the tenets of fairness and transparency are not mere relics of the past but living pillars of our democratic foundation. The perplexing dance of legality and politics continues, and the nation watches with bated breath for the scales of justice to tip in favour of a truly democratic ethos.

The discussion delves into the critical issue of transparency in political funding, echoing the sentiments expressed by Mr Jaitley himself, who deemed it crucial for free and fair elections. The participants emphasize that free and fair elections considered a basic structure of the constitution, are in jeopardy due to the implications of the electoral bonds scheme. Despite this, the Supreme Court's perceived reluctance to address this matter promptly is viewed as a cause for concern, prompting a call for accountability.

The conversation takes a daring turn as one of the participants expresses audacity in writing about a wavering faith in the Supreme Court in a recent Indian Express column. However, there is a glimmer of hope that the court will continue to revive its role as a guardian of democracy. Nevertheless, the persisting issue of a non-level playing field in contemporary politics remains a serious concern, highlighting the need for immediate rectification.

The question of whether the money received through the electoral bonds scheme should be returned becomes a central point of contention. While acknowledging the difficulty in tracing individual contributions, there is a consensus that the principle of accountability for illegal transactions should prevail. The suggestion to attach and sell the offices of political parties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) becomes a proposal for recovering the funds obtained through the illegal scheme.

The conversation grapples with the aftermath of the Supreme Court's judgment and the potential consequences for the political landscape. There is a plea to avoid a scenario where the judgment leads to inaction, perpetuating a non-level playing field. The idea of looking forward and focusing on future solutions is raised, emphasizing the need for alternatives in political funding while acknowledging the challenges posed by the past.

The participants explore the possibility of recovering funds through legal means and propose disgorgement as a consequence of the illegal transactions facilitated by the electoral bonds scheme. The legal analogy is drawn to ordinary contract law, questioning why the principle of disgorgement, applied in illegal transactions, shouldn't be extended to this particular scenario.

The debate concludes with a call to create a level playing field, underscoring the importance of addressing past misdemeanours to ensure the integrity of the democratic process. The participants highlight the potential consequences of the non-level playing field, pointing out the alteration of laws to allow contributions from loss-making companies, which, in turn, legitimizes crony capitalism. The conversation reflects the complexity of the issue, intertwining legal intricacies with the broader concerns of democracy and political ethics.

The discussion delves into the amendments that allowed any amount, even from loss-making companies, to be contributed to political funding, a move viewed as a disaster with malicious intent. The conversation pivots to the implications of this amendment, pointing out that loss-making companies would likely seek favours from the government, thereby legitimizing crony capitalism.

The issue of disgorgement, however, wasn't explicitly argued before the Supreme Court. The participants acknowledge the challenge of making parties disgorge without their active participation in the legal proceedings. The complex party structures and the absence of regular internal elections contribute to the difficulty of challenging party decisions. The conversation sheds light on the internal dynamics of political parties and the challenges associated with holding them accountable for illegal transactions.

The discourse touches on the organizational structure of political parties, particularly the BJP, highlighting a lack of internal dissent and regular elections within the party. The relationship between the BJP and the RSS is explored, with the understanding that the RSS benefits from a different funding scheme, independent of financial contributions from the BJP. The discontent within the RSS regarding this financial arrangement is acknowledged, showcasing internal tensions.

Dr Swami brings attention to the broader issue of character and integrity within political parties. Drawing from the Constituent Assembly's emphasis on the need for individuals with character and integrity, he suggests that political parties should take a stand against corruption. The proposal is for parties to declare a refusal to accept black money and only accept transparent contributions via cheque.

The discussion concludes with the exploration of future solutions to the issue of political funding. Yaqub Bhai's solutions are alluded to, emphasizing the role of character and integrity in shaping the ethical standards of political financing. The conversation highlights the need for a collective commitment from political parties to uphold transparency and integrity in the electoral process.

In the intricate tapestry of political funding, the relentless pursuit of transparency encounters numerous challenges. The clamour against black money in elections echoes loudly, and while a solution seems elusive, there are intriguing anecdotes that shed light on the complexities inherent in this endeavour.

One such narrative unfolds with the inception of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), a trailblazer in transparent political funding practices. The party initially garnered acclaim for diligently disclosing income and expenditure details on its website. However, a surprising turn of events emerged when this transparency vanished from the digital realm. The revelation, made by a significant party leader, was startling—he cited the raids on every donor as the reason behind removing the information. This episode underscores the delicate balance between transparency and the protection of donors, highlighting the need for a shift in the quality of politicians toward more desirable practices.

The conundrum deepens when considering the stance of political parties on accepting cash. While the issue is not confined to parties alone, the practicalities faced by individual candidates are significant. A candidate, bound by a modest 95 lakh budget for a parliamentary election, grapples with the challenge of serving a constituency spanning 50 kilometres. The stark reality is that even if a party pledges to reject illegitimate funding, candidates may find themselves compelled to seek alternative sources to meet the stringent financial constraints imposed upon them.

The Election Commission has been confronted with the persistent question of rationalizing expenditure limits. The absence of a consensus on a rational limit exemplifies the complexity of the issue, with varying opinions ranging from considering 95 lakhs too much to others advocating for even higher limits. The struggle intensifies when confronted with the absence of a ceiling on political party expenditure, leading to an uneven playing field. In contrast to the UK, where a cap on party expenditure is in place, India grapples with the unbridled spending power of political entities.

As the nation contemplates the future of political funding, the need for a rational and equitable approach becomes evident. The intricate dance between transparency, ethical financing, and the sheer practicalities of running an election underscores the multifaceted nature of this ongoing debate. The quest to strike a balance between financial prudence and fairness remains a daunting challenge in the relentless pursuit of a vibrant and transparent democratic process.

In response to growing concerns over excessive political spending, a proposed solution suggests imposing caps on both individual and party expenditures, aiming to reduce the current 60,000 crores to a more manageable 6,000 crores. However, concerns about potential black money generation highlight the need for careful consideration.

An alternative solution proposes involving corporates by imposing a seven-and-a-half per cent cess on the corporate sector for election funding, directing the funds to the Election Commission of India. These concise suggestions prompt a crucial dialogue on achieving a balanced, transparent, and accountable electoral financing system.

To address concerns over political spending, two proposed solutions have emerged. The first involves imposing a 2-3% cess on the corporate sector, contributing to the Election Commission of India. This fund would then be distributed equally among candidates based on party strength in Parliament and legislatures.

The second suggestion explores banning private donations altogether, opting for state-funded elections or funding political parties based on their actual electoral performance. This performance-based funding could be calculated by providing a set amount, such as 100 rupees, for every vote received. Another alternative involves creating a National Election Fund, where corporations contribute, receiving tax relief, and the funds are distributed objectively based on electoral performance.

The conversation also touches on the limitations of electoral trusts and the need for transparency in funding mechanisms. The Supreme Court's involvement in addressing these issues is acknowledged, emphasizing the importance of finding practical and transparent solutions for the electoral funding system.

The electoral bond system in India has a tiered contribution structure, starting at a minimum of 10,000 and escalating to one lakh, 10 lakhs, and one crore. Contributions beyond one crore are prohibited. However, the bearer bonds are transferable, allowing individuals to purchase on behalf of others. While the State Bank of India records the purchaser's KYC, the ultimate contributor may remain undisclosed. Concerns about potential quid pro quo arrangements have been raised, prompting calls for transparency. The suggestion includes making the details of bond purchasers public to allow scrutiny. Critics argue that identifying the purchaser may not be sufficient, emphasizing the need for an independent investigative agency to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of funds.

The key challenge lies in the implementation of the electoral bond system, with concerns about companies exploiting anonymity provisions. The issue of whether the courts will uphold the confidentiality promised to donors remains uncertain. While Justice Lohkar acknowledges potential challenges in court, the question arises: why not have the Supreme Court take responsibility for the matter? Given the court's declaration of the system as illegal and the dismissal of secrecy as a defence, there is a suggestion for the Supreme Court to establish an investigative body. Addressing the character problem, it is emphasized that donors, particularly affluent ones, should be aware of the potential consequences and motivations behind their contributions. The need for proactive measures to ensure accountability and address potential quid pro quo situations is underscored.

The lack of appreciation and encouragement for politicians, especially those from humble backgrounds, is noted. The concern is raised about politicians amassing wealth rapidly, leading to a perception that cheating is normalized in politics. The political system is criticized for fostering a culture where illegitimate actions are deemed acceptable, and individuals feel unaccountable. The dearth of politicians with strong character is highlighted as a significant issue. Shifting to political funding, the connection between corporate sector ownership of media and government advertisements is discussed. The potential quid pro quo between political parties receiving funding and media controlled by the corporate sector is acknowledged. The concern is expressed that government campaigns, fueled by electoral bonds, may manipulate narratives through media influence, posing a significant threat to democratic values.

in the heart of India's democratic landscape lies a pressing concern that demands immediate attention – the lack of transparency in political funding. The recent discussion between two prominent voices sheds light on the critical issue of undisclosed expenditures by political parties, particularly concerning media companies that receive substantial donations. One key proposal emphasized in the conversation is the necessity for a rule compelling political parties to declare and elucidate every expenditure, ensuring accountability and diminishing the potential for quid pro quo arrangements with the corporate sector.

An inherent inconsistency in the existing system is brought to the forefront, questioning the disparate expenditure ceilings for candidates and political parties. The discussion underscores the need for uniformity in regulations to maintain fairness and integrity in the electoral process. The speakers also call for a significant overhaul in the auditing process, advocating for the appointment of independent auditors by the Election Commission. This move aims to mitigate concerns of bias and whitewashing by auditors affiliated with political parties, thereby fostering a more transparent political landscape.

Furthermore, the conversation delves into the challenges of dissent and reprisals within institutions, emphasizing the critical role of an independent body in addressing these issues. Both speakers express shared concerns about the current state of politics in the country, highlighting the imperative need for positive change. The discussion concludes with a poignant call for reform that aligns with the vision of the nation's forefathers, ensuring that the democratic fabric of the country remains true to its principles. As India stands at a crossroads, the urgent need for transparency in political funding emerges as a rallying point for those advocating for a more accountable and ethical political landscape.

Conclusion

As the echoes of the Supreme Court's landmark declaration on the electoral bonds scheme reverberate, the urgent need for transparency in political funding takes centre stage. The dynamic discussion among eminent personalities emphasizes the imperative for a comprehensive overhaul in the political financing landscape. The call for uniform regulations, independent auditing, and the establishment of an investigative body resonates as a collective plea for a fair and accountable democratic process. The conclusion underscores the nation's crossroads, urging for immediate reforms aligned with the visionary ideals of the country's forefathers. The intricate dance of legality, ethics, and political dynamics unfolds, beckoning a renewed commitment to uphold the foundational principles of a transparent and thriving democracy in India.

.    .    .

References:

Discus