There is a necessity to enhance the current system's transparency in alignment with the directives of the Supreme Court

The decision of the Supreme Court on electoral bonds is a legal process and there is no point in making any special comments on the same. But the first thing that deserves consideration in this regard is why the system of electoral bonds was introduced in the first instance. Political parties have the right to collect donations and do not have to pay any income tax on the funds so collected. Those who receive money in the form of donations are expected to provide information about the same to the Election Commission. Earlier, information about the money received through bank cheques or drafts was available, but there was a complete lack of transparency regarding cash receipts.

It is a fact that the presence of black money has been prevalent in the politics and electoral process of our country, and the solution to this problem has been under discussion for a long time. Before the introduction of electoral bonds, big cash collection was legal and now it’s not. 

Due to black money, funders continued to take unfair advantage of the political parties and their governments. This situation was a serious challenge to our political system. In this background, by introducing the system of electoral bonds, an attempt was made to stop the problem of black money and discourage the same.

In the year 2017, the system of electoral bonds was first introduced by the Government of India, in which provision was made that electoral bonds can be purchased by any person or institution and can be given to any party. The parties redeem the electoral bonds within a stipulated period. In this system, there has been no provision to make public the information as to how much donation has been given by which person or institution to which party through electoral bonds. The Supreme Court has objected to this provision and has said that there should be proper transparency in the transactions of election donations. 

The court has instructed the State Bank of India to stop the issuance of electoral bonds. The main objection of the Supreme Court is regarding transparency. We should understand that there was a huge lack of transparency in the system that was in place before the advent of electoral bonds and the way political parties raised money. Besides, there was also the problem of what is the source of money of the people who are giving huge amounts of cash. It was impossible to find out who had given cash to the political party in question and whether there was any quid pro quo, that is, whether an undue advantage had been given to that person or firm donating to the political party.

The number of registered political parties in our country is in the hundreds. In such a situation, it is not possible to have a central repository of wealth and to provide an equal share to all the parties. Moreover, the ideologies of the political parties are also different. Suppose someone has to donate and feels that the ideology and programmes of some party are based on narrow thinking and are harmful to the country. They would not like to donate to that party. If all parties receive equal funding, then forming a party will become a business.

If the Supreme Court believes that it should be transparently known how much money has been given by which person or institution to which party, then this is an interpretation of the law and should be taken positively.

We have many examples in the past where the government did not accept the decisions of the Supreme Court and passed laws in the Parliament, nullifying the court’s rulings. Additionally, there have also been instances when amending laws have been passed accepting the main points of court orders and incorporating them into the law. Since the government still needs time to understand and interpret Supreme Court decisions.

It seems that there is a need to make the present system more transparent and in tune with the objections of the Supreme Court, and the government can present a revised draft before the Parliament. But this cannot be done immediately. The journey of the nation continues. In this journey, laws are formed, amended and also abolished, with changing circumstances. There is no need to consider this electoral bond issue from a short-term perspective.

Since this decision is of the Supreme Court of India, the country and the government have to be respected, but it must be understood that the system of electoral bonds has been a progressive step towards dealing with the use of black money in elections. The provision of electoral bonds was made during the tenure of this government, hence this government will have to see that a revised system is brought in compliance with the objections and instructions of the Supreme Court.

The purpose of any system or legislation is that there should be no interference of economic and muscle power in the democratic process of our country and there should be clean and fair elections.

While making amendments to the law about political funding, we need to ensure that we may not revert to the old system of cash receipts by political parties which would allow corruption in public life and even the play of muscle power and the use of illicit money and money received from unethical activities.

(The writer is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi, views are personal)