ABSTRACT
This article addresses the recent Indian supreme court verdict that declared electoral bonds invalid. Electoral bonds came in 2017, allowing anonymous contributors to support political parties.[1]Critics contended that the lack of transparency allowed for unrestricted corporate financing to political parties. This breached citizen’s right to knowledge under Indian constitution. The article describes how electoral bonds function through the state bank of India. Donors may anonymously purchase bonds and transfer funds straight into the parties’ account. Between 2018 and 2022, almost $2 billion in bonds were issued, with the ruling BJP getting 60% of donation. Opposition parties said that the system allowed for money laundering and improper political influence by companies. Th article analyzes the supreme court’s unanimous decision that bonds violate the right of citizens to know the source of political finance. This entitlement surpassed concerns about donor privacy. The court determined that the bonds did not effectively reduce black money, as indicated. The study emphasizes the need to balance openness and privacy issues while creating fair, constitutional political funding system. This would enhance Indian democracy by increasing voter awareness and control of donor influence.
Keywords: Political Funding, Electoral Bonds, Supreme Court Ruling, Electoral Reforms, Transparency, Anonymous Donations, Right to Information.
INTRODUCTION
Political campaign finance has long been a murky subject in India. Due to unrestricted political donations, corporate influence and black money had a significant impact on elections but were often hidden from public view. This undermined openness and accountability for parties and candidates. The Modi government electoral bonds in 2017 to overhaul political finance. In the union budget address, it was stated that the goal was to improve transparency and reduce cash transactions in election funding. The new electoral scheme allows for anonymous payments to political parties through state bank of India branches.
The technique was described as allowing lawful donations from firms, groups, individuals seeking secrecy. The former system of cash equivalents was criticized for encouraging black money and allowing for misuse. Electoral bonds, which operate bearer instruments, aim to address this by publicly funneling “white money” into the system. Initially opposition parties, transparency campaigners, and constitutional experts expressed major concerns, they stated that the method allowed for concealed corporate funding to ruling parties. The government’s use of the state-owned SBI permitted contributors to remain anonymous, unlike the prior system of private electoral trusts.
With the general election looming in 2024, the monitoring of electoral ties has intensified. Opposition parties argue that the method disproportionately benefits the ruling party and hinders their own fundraising efforts. Petition submitted shortly after the announcement prompted the supreme court to examine its constitutional legitimacy. The court ruled the arrangement unconstitutional and arbitrary, achieving a significant win for transparency. Comprehensive disclosure of bond transactions is necessary to determine who gave how much to which party and maximize its impact. To ensure free and fair elections, funders who influence policy and governance must be transparent to the public.
[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378299703_The_Unconstitutional_Nature_of_Electoral_Bonds_in_India_Impacts_on_Political_Transparency_and_the_Democratic_Process#:~:text=Analyzing%20the%20Supreme%20Court’s%20rationale,curb%20black%20money%20as%20claimed.