New Delhi, India – India’s Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling abolishing the country’s opaque campaign finance system has caused a shake-up in the country’s politics, with transparency advocates warning against controversial forms of political financing ahead of national elections. They claim that those involved may be exposed.
Opposition leaders say the verdict marks a setback for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The party government introduced the electoral bond system seven years ago and has fought a long and bitter battle in the Supreme Court to defend the funding mechanism.
But the Bharatiya Janata Party itself insists that the court order will not affect its chances of holding the next election, scheduled for March-May, when Prime Minister Modi is aiming to secure a third consecutive term in power. are doing.
Electoral bonds, introduced by the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2017, allow individuals and companies to donate money to political parties anonymously and without restrictions. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that “political contributions give contributors a seat at the table” and that “this access also translates into influence over policy decisions.”
The Supreme Court called the plan “unconstitutional.” It also directed the state-run State Bank of India (SBI) to stop issuing bonds, provide the identities of those who bought the bonds, and provide information on bonds redeemed by political parties. The information will be published on the Election Commission of India website. SBI is the only entity authorized to issue bonds under this scheme.
If the information is made public under a court order, nearly a billion Indian voters will learn for the first time about the donors who have quietly given billions of dollars to political parties since 2017 and secured them in return. That could trigger scrutiny of potential benefits. .
“This judgment fundamentally upholds the need for transparency in political party funding and emphasizes that in a democracy, the people’s right to know supersedes any anonymity.” Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener of the national campaign, told Al Jazeera.
“The root of corruption in India is political funding. [electoral bonds] “Dark money” anonymously flowed into political parties without limit. ”
“Slap the Bharatiya Janata Party in the face.”
SBI has sold a total of $20.3 billion worth of electoral bonds, including the latest tranche in January this year. The BJP received almost 55% of these total donations.
“The ruling party received huge amounts of money and spent it.” [the last national election in 2019]. This is a travesty of parliamentary democracy that has been incorporated in India through anonymous donations,” Brinda Karat, a senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) official, told Al Jazeera.
The left-wing party currently in power in India’s southern state of Kerala was among those who appealed to the Supreme Court to rule that electoral bonds are illegal. It is also the only major political party to officially decide not to accept any donations through these bonds.
“The judgment condemns the legalization of political corruption by this government. The BJP will now be accountable to the people for the money it collects from companies and the policies it sets for them in return.” Karat said.
Pramod Tiwari, a member of the National Congress Party and deputy leader of opposition in India’s upper house of parliament, said the verdict was a landmark moment for the country.
“The judges have exposed violations of the Indian Constitution by the Bharatiya Janata Party. They exercised their legislative powers with misguided intentions and facilitated the influx of political funds through black money,” Tiwari said.
“This is a slap in the face for the Bharatiya Janata Party,” he told Al Jazeera. Tiwari said the verdict will hurt the prospects of Hindu majority parties in the upcoming national polls. “The government used its legislative powers as a shield to engage in acts of robbery and money injection.”
“People decide”
But the Bharatiya Janata Party on Thursday suggested it was not too concerned about the court order.
BJP leader and MP Ravi Shankar Prasad dismissed opposition claims that electoral bonds gave his party a dramatic advantage over its rivals.
“When it comes to a level playing field, the question is whether you are on the field or off the field. People decide whether you are on the field or not,” he told reporters. .
Opposition critics also point out that apart from the CPI(M), other political parties also received donations through the electoral bond scheme. For example, the Congress received 9% of the total slush funds raised by political parties under this scheme, which is only one-sixth of the funds secured by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
And while the abolition of electoral bonds may eliminate one form of controversial funding, political parties still have another avenue to receive large sums of money.
This includes direct funding from companies, which political parties must declare to the Election Commission of India. And there, the BJP’s advantage over other parties is even stronger than in the case of electoral bonds. In the 2022-23 fiscal year, the Bharatiya Janata Party received nearly 90% of all corporate donations, excluding electoral bonds, according to a study by the Institute for Democratic Change, a nonprofit organization focused on election transparency.
Political parties spent a total of $8.7 billion in India’s last national elections in 2019, according to the New Delhi-based Center for Media Research, and analysts expect them to comfortably surpass that figure in 2024. are doing.
“Celebration” and “Awkwardness”
For activists who have been fighting against the electoral bond system, Thursday’s order was a monumental moment.
Admiral Lokesh Batra, a 77-year-old retired naval officer and transparency campaigner, has filed more than 80 requests for details of the plan under India’s Freedom of Information Act and has spent the day responding to congratulatory messages. spent.
“Electoral bonds created an unequal field and were an opaque form of political financing,” he told Al Jazeera in a phone interview. “Companies don’t give money unless they ask for something in return. In this case, foreign companies can set up subsidiaries in India and make contributions. Our Democracy [was vulnerable to] It will be influenced by foreign countries. ”
Batra added that the timing of the ruling will at least prevent political parties from accepting bonds in another tranche before national elections. He said: “Political parties need to be more transparent about their funding and protect internal democracy.”
Venkatesh Nayak, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said his organization’s research found that opaque donations had become increasingly prevalent following the introduction of electoral bonds. Now, institutions such as the Central Bank of India, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Election Commission of India (ECI) “need to rise to the occasion,” he said.
Although both the RBI and ECI initially expressed reservations about the electoral bond system, they have since accepted it.
India’s former Election Commissioner SY Quraishi told Al Jazeera that the institutions had reversed their stance “by issuing similar language in the Supreme Court as the government”, saying, “The central bank and the ECI will be embarrassed. ” he said.
“The election commission must be feeling very uncomfortable today,” Quraishi said.
