The Electoral Bond Scheme Must Be Suitably Amended Or Scrapped
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-04-12 07:03:27
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
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.
