The ruling has sparked a plethora of conjecture over the potential responses from the administration. This article focuses on the impact of the ruling, not on conjecture around the matter.
‘Transparency in Electoral Funding’ was the title of the two paragraphs in the then-finance minister’s budget speech that introduced the scheme as part of the 2017 Budget, but as the details of the scheme became known, it became evident that it eliminated the meagre layer of transparency that the electoral system had.
To put it briefly, the program allowed any individual or organisation to donate any amount of money to any political party that received at least 1% of the vote in the previous election. Subtly tucked away in the tiny language of the plan were clauses allowing any company, even those experiencing financial difficulties, to make unlimited undisclosed donations to political parties.
Source: News Click
The plan’s ability to allow the ruling political party to stifle the funding of any opposition party was its most harmful aspect. This was made possible by the clause that required the State Bank of India (SBI), the sole issuing bank, to gather KYC (know your customer) information from any individual or organisation that bought electoral bonds (EBs) and to keep it confidential unless a court ordered otherwise.
Nevertheless, nothing stopped the state-owned SBI from providing this data to the current administration via the finance ministry, which is its parent ministry. Their party also gained access to this material once it was obtained by the minister or the finance ministry. The political party then had the choice to use pressure or influence over the EB buyer to transfer the funds to the ruling party rather than an opposition organisation.
Source: The Economic Times
The Supreme Court cited this as an example of an unequal playing field—since opposition parties were not granted this option—when it struck down the plan. The plan’s violation of people’ and voters’ fundamental right to know where political parties receive their funding was the second major factor.
The ruling eliminates a significant flaw in the 2017 election funding system, which would contribute to the public’s renewed trust in democracy and the rule of law. Prior to 2017, the system was far from ideal, and it is necessary to make improvements without introducing distortions like electoral bonds.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
