Electoral Bonds: Supreme Court’s blow to Modi government
It restores voters’ right to information in unambiguous terms and also makes null and void all the amendments that were made in the Companies Act and other laws to create an opaque system of funding for political parties
The direction of the Supreme Court to make the list of donors public is very significant. The list that has to come within three weeks will tell how the ruling party has been collaborating with companies and making favors for them in lieu of their donations. It will expose the government. Almost 57 percent of the amount donated through the electoral bonds went to the ruling BJP
The judgment of the Supreme Court on the Electoral Bonds is historic in many more ways. It has not only restored citizens’s rights but also the power of the judiciary. During the last 10 years of Modi’s rule, we have seen institutions crumble. It also includes the judiciary. We hardly remember any judgment of the Supreme Court scrapping a significant decision of the current government. Most of the time, the judgment has ultimately endorsed the viewpoint of the government. At times, it has ridiculed the petitioner, who had challenged the government. We even find judges commenting against the government and giving a verdict that favors the government’s actions. The classic case is the Delhi Liquor Scam. The Court ridiculed the government agency during the hearing, but the judgment contradicted what it had opened during proceedings. In other stances, the Court declared the action of the ruling elites illegal but allowed the illegality to stay. We see it in the case of the toppling of the Uddhav Thackrey government in Maharashtra. The Court found illegality in the Governor’s actions and ruled that a political party could not splinter by merely splitting the legislature party. But the outcome hardly redressed the victim. Neither Shiv Sena could be saved from the split, nor did its rebels get disqualified. The government that was formed on the basis of illegal actions continued.
The scrapping of the electoral bond is a judgment that is without any ambiguity. It restores voters’ right to information in unambiguous terms and also makes null and void all the amendments that were made in the Companies Act and other laws to create an opaque system of funding for political parties. The government had overruled all the objections of the Reserve Bank of India and the Election Commission of India and arbitrarily put in place a system that would allow it to collect money from companies to fund its political activities without any accountability. No one, including the shareholders of a company, had the right to know about the donations their companies were giving to political parties. There was no cap on the amount of the donation. The foreign money could also be donated through a subsidiary company. There was no safeguard against black money being donated to the political parties. It was all being done in the name of transparency and the crusade against black money!
We need to look back at the evolution of corporate funding in independent India. We must make people aware of how responsibly the previous generation of lawmakers tried to shield the electoral system from big money. Since 1959, when companies were allowed to donate money to political parties, a series of laws have been enacted to curb the influence of money power in politics. They put a cap on these donations, and a ceiling of 7.5 percent of the profit was put on donations from a company. The donors had to maintain all the transparency. They had to make it public how much they had donated and to whom. Violations were made punishable, and a very large fine was imposed. All this was done away with when the law for donations through electoral bonds was passed. The Act undermined the sovereign powers of the Reserve Bank of India. The State Bank of India was assigned to issue these bonds. The State Bank of India functions under the finance ministry. It makes the whole process government of India. How does anyone think of impartiality?
The direction of the Supreme Court to make the list of donors public is very significant. The list that has to come within three weeks will tell how the ruling party has been collaborating with companies and making favors for them in lieu of their donations. It will expose the government. Almost 57 percent of the amount donated through the electoral bonds went to the ruling BJP. When the list of donors comes out, we will know why the BJP was their favorite.
The arguments put forward by the Union Government in the Supreme Court to defend electoral bonds also display the creed that guides the present ruling dispensation. It argued,
“Citizens do not have a general right to know regarding the funding of political parties. The right to know is not a general right available to citizens. This Court has evolved the right to know for the specific purpose of enabling and furthering the voter’s choice of electing candidates free from blemish.”
It was also argued that the Court should not examine it. “The influence of contributions by companies to political parties ought not to be examined by this Court. It is an issue of democratic significance and should be best left to the legislature,” the government said. The Union of India submitted that this Court must exercise judicial restraint while deciding the challenge to the Electoral Bond Scheme. Does it not amount to limiting the jurisdiction of the court?
Eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who argued against the Electoral Bonds, rightly says, “The SC’s strong judgment striking down the Electoral Bonds has been universally welcomed and lauded by civil society. It is a breath of fresh air in our strangulated democracy when fundamental rights are attacked and institutions are subverted. It shows how desperately people want the judiciary to stand up for our republic.”
However, he says, “The scrapping of electoral bonds will not do away with illicit political funding or the role of money in electoral politics. For that, we need to prohibit dealing in cash by political parties and candidates. Also, there needs to be a limit on the expenditure of political parties,” he says. This judgment has contributed to democracy by restoring NGOs such as the Association of Democratic Reforms and the Common Cause that have fought the case. They had been under attack by the right-wing elements for a long time.
(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)
