The Congress seeks SC-monitored probe for transparency in the Electoral Bonds issue

The controversy around the now-scrapped Electoral Bonds just refuses to die down. A day after the political funding data was made public, activists demanded an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe all aspects of the scheme. The Congress has already upped the ante; the debate has been reignited as the party presses for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation into the alleged malpractices surrounding these financial instruments. Accusations of “pre-paid, post-paid and post-raid bribes” have intensified the clamour for transparency and accountability in the electoral financing system. Electoral Bonds, introduced in 2018 ostensibly to promote transparency in political funding, allow individuals and corporations to donate money anonymously to political parties. Targeted at curbing the use of black money in elections, these bonds have faced criticism since inception, primarily over their potential to facilitate unaccounted donations and influence peddling. Despite ensuring transparency, they are said to be tools for bribing one political party or the other. The Congress alleges that the bonds have become conduits for illegal transactions, facilitating the flow of unaccounted funds to political parties. The use of terms like “pre-paid, post-paid and post-raid bribes” reflects the suspicion that these bonds have been exploited not only to fund political campaigns but also to influence policy decisions through backdoor dealings.

The call for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation underscores the lack of faith in the existing mechanisms for oversight and regulation of electoral finances. Somewhere, the Congress has apprehensions that the party in power may be able to influence the probe. The Congress, along with other Opposition groups, contends that any inquiry conducted under the Government’s auspices would lack impartiality and could be subject to manipulation. The absence of disclosure requirements regarding the identity of donors compounds concerns about accountability and opens the door to potential misuse of funds. Furthermore, recent raids conducted by law enforcement agencies on premises linked to certain political entities have brought to light a web of dubious financial transactions allegedly involving electoral bonds. The controversy underscores broader concerns about the influence of money in politics and the need for robust mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in electoral financing. While proponents argue that such instruments are essential for sustaining political parties and facilitating democratic processes, critics contend that the lack of transparency compromises the integrity of the electoral system. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter could prove pivotal in restoring public trust in the electoral process. The judiciary can help ensure that the electoral process remains free from undue influence and corruption. Only through a thorough and impartial investigation can the truth be unearthed, and measures be implemented to safeguard the democratic principles upon which the nation’s governance rests.