According to the Prime Minister, the court’s ruling has caused party contributions to shift toward “black money,” alluding to the previous political donation system in place prior to the introduction of the bonds program in 2017.
“When they think honestly, everyone will regret it,” stated the prime minister.Election Bonds have been defended by the BJP even after the court’s ruling. It is one thing for a political party and its leaders to defend a government law or decision and object to the court’s ruling on it; it is quite another when the prime minister takes the stand in a case where the supreme court declared that the scheme in question was “unconstitutional” in addition to the important laws governing corporations, elections, and taxation having been amended to make it “illegal.” Furthermore, the Prime Minister’s arguments lack accuracy and validity. He claimed that compared to the old system, the bond plan was more transparent. But the court did actually discard it due to its lack of transparency.
Source: Hindustan Times
The court’s definition of transparency and the widely accepted definition of transparency state that the public, especially voters, must be informed about the people funding our political parties. The prime minister appears to define transparency as the donors and recipients of Electoral Bonds being transparent to him and his government through the SBI.
The government’s claim that there are other means to combat black money was also rejected by the court. The government had put in place measures that allowed parties to exclude any documentation of the contributions they received and permitted people and businesses to contribute indefinitely, even in the event that they were losing money. The country must be informed by the prime minister as to the rationale for these rules and whether they acted to reduce black money or promote transparency.
Source: Narendra Modi
The scheme’s abuse was further justification for its termination, as evidenced by the numerous disclosures made following the court’s order compelling the SBI to disclose the names of donors.The prime minister refuted allegations of scheme misuse and noted that corporate payments had also been made to opposition parties. However, there have been other instances reported in which businesses have donated following raids by federal investigative agencies. That can only be seen as a scheme misuse.
Misuse of the program would also occur if opposition parties forced businesses to donate in states where they controlled the government. The prime minister stated that new systems must be developed, enhanced, and learned. You’re welcome for that.However, it is regrettable that he continues to support a plan that the nation as a whole has come to view as “unconstitutional” and that the Supreme Court has declared to be such.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
