Why is the Supreme Court Insisting on the Election Commission to Furnish Details of Electoral Bonds Received by Political Parties?

Recently, the Supreme Court of India directed the Election Commission (EC) to furnish all the details of electoral bonds received by political parties within two weeks. This move has sparked a debate among critics and supporters of the Electoral Bond scheme. Critics argue that the transparency demanded by the Supreme Court could expose the dark underbelly of the Indian political system, while supporters see it as a crucial step towards ensuring fair and clean governance.

Background and Criticism

The petition that led to this directive was filed by various opposition parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. The opposition argues that access to black money and fake currency has been a strategic advantage for the BJP, making it difficult for the opposition to contest elections effectively. BJP, on the other hand, is seen as a primary beneficiary of this scheme due to its extensive networks and ability to access resources.

Arvind Kejriwal, a prominent opposition leader, has also raised concerns about the transparency of illegal funding. He questions the authenticity of sources like Chanda, a volunteer who reportedly financed Kejriwal's travel expenses during election campaigns with black money. This, coupled with the Supreme Court's interest, raises questions about the current state of affairs in politics.

How Electoral Bonds Work

Launched in 2018 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Electoral Bond Scheme was designed to prevent black money laundering during elections. Here’s a brief overview of how these bonds operate:

Issuance by Banks: Electoral Bonds are issued by commercial banks, ensuring that funds transferred to political parties go through the banking system. This, in itself, is a positive move towards financial transparency. Non-Disclosure of Donor Identity: One of the criticisms of this scheme is that it does not reveal the identity of the donors, making it difficult to track illegal funding. Buying Process: Any Indian citizen or corporate entity can purchase these bonds from specific State Bank of India (SBI) branches. The buyer must adhere to Know Your Customer (KYC) norms. Donation Guidelines: The purchased bonds must be donated to political parties that have secured at least one percent of the votes in the most recent elections.

Concerns Over Funding and Corruption

The opposition parties argue that non-disclosure of donor identities poses a serious threat to democracy. They claim that the lack of transparency has enabled the BJP to finance its campaigns effectively, while other parties are struggling due to the absence of black money and fake currency.

Recent events, such as the confiscation of 150 crore rupees in hard cash in Bangalore and the alleged involvement of Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel in the Mahadev Gaming Group, have further fueled these concerns. These instances highlight the ongoing issues of corruption and illegal funding in Indian politics.

Moreover, the Congress Party and other opposition parties are facing severe financial constraints, which they attribute to the BJP's access to black money. The continual seizure of large amounts of cash by the police only adds to their frustration.

Supreme Court's Verdict

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on this matter, indicating that the issue is still under judicial consideration. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have significant implications for the future of electoral funding and political transparency in India.

In conclusion, while the Electoral Bond Scheme was introduced with noble intentions, it has raised several questions about political transparency and funding. The demand by the Supreme Court for detailed information is a crucial step towards addressing these concerns and ensuring fair elections. As the case progresses, the hope is that a more transparent and accountable political system will emerge in India.