The A-G's contention that poll bonds are not for public purview is anathema to democracy

Democracy dies in darkness' is a popular phrase but India’s Attorney General does not seem to believe it. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court in a case concerning public revelation of electoral bond details, A-G R Venkataramani has contended that citizens are not entitled to access information about financial support by an individual or an entity to a political party under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He countered the argument presented by the petitioners challenging the electoral bonds scheme, asserting that citizens do "not possess a general unrestricted right to know" every detail. He emphasised that the right to information, when essential for expression, must serve specific purposes or ends, rather than being absolute. The funding of political campaigns and elections enables parties and candidates to reach voters, spread their message and compete on a level playing field. However, the source of funding can significantly impact the integrity of the political process. To understand the gravity of the situation, savour this: Between March 2018 and July 2023, an approximate sum of Rs 13,000 crore was funnelled to various political parties. From 2018 to 2022, electoral bonds totalling Rs 9,208 crore were issued, with the BJP claiming 58 per cent of the total amount.

As reported by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in March 2023, over 66 per cent of the total revenue for the seven national parties was derived from electoral bonds and undisclosed sources. There is strong reason to believe that most funding comes from the black money stacked with the individuals. So, while the political class would like to know about how a common citizen spends each of his pennies, they would not like to divulge the funding they receive, neither the source nor the amount. All you have is a total figure which tells nothing about the donors or the donations to the political party. Knowing the sources of funding allows voters to hold candidates and parties accountable. If large sums of money come from special interest groups or corporations, it raises concerns about whether those entities will have undue influence over elected representatives. If some big corporate funding is in public domain and that party after returning to power acts to promote its interest, a quid pro quo can be established and that is what the political parties will desist tooth and nail. The A-G's contention runs counter to the principles of transparency and accountability in a democracy. While there are arguments in favour of privacy in certain contexts, political funding is not one of them. The argument often made in favour of non-disclosure is the protection of free speech and preventing donor harassment. However, this stance assumes that disclosure necessarily leads to harassment, and it neglects the greater principles of transparency and accountability.