oppn parties The Electoral Bond Scheme Must Be Suitably Amended Or Scrapped

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
The Electoral Bond Scheme Must Be Suitably Amended Or Scrapped

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-04-12 07:03:27

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

Electoral Bonds have been criticized from the day they were launched. They were touted as a big step to curb the use of black money in politics as they were to be purchased from a designated bank by cheque or digital transfer and given to such political parties who would encash it through banking channels. But there are many anomalies in the scheme which make it opaque and it cannot be called a reformist measure.

In 2019 an RTI activist had brought out the information that the Election Commission (EC) had objected when the government wanted to introduce the electoral bonds scheme by objecting to the amendments to the Finance Act, 2017. Even the RBI had objected to the scheme. But the government overrode all objections to notify the scheme. Acting on that, the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) had filed a fresh application seeking a stay on the scheme. It needs reminding that the earlier application for a stay filed by ADR in 2017 was still pending. The ADR said the need for a fresh application arose after the new revelations.

Now, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will hear the pleas against Electoral Bonds. This is good news. The court must look at the fact that it the garb of making it a transaction that is done through banking channels electoral bonds offer anonymity to the donor. But the ruling party can always find out from the designated bank who purchased the bonds and who encashed them, making it possible for it to victimize those who fund the opposition.

Further, at present, political parties can accept only up to Rs 2000 in cash and have to disclose the name of all donors who donate any amount by cheque. But if the donation is made through electoral bonds, the party will disclose it got the amount and the company will disclose that it paid the amount. But the party will not disclose the name of the donor and the donor will not disclose the name of the party to which the donation was made. Is this transparency? Is this reform? Or is this invitation for quid pro quo? The apex court must take up the matter at the earliest and as the electoral bond scheme in its present form is not transparent.