Here Is Why The Electoral Bonds Scheme Must Go

Context: Highlighting the constitutional objections against the electoral bond scheme.

Constitutional objections against electoral bond scheme

• Anonymous donations: Information on who funds political parties kept away from voters, thus violating basic tenants of democracy.
  • Since money is the most effective way of buying policy, engaging in regulatory capture, and skewing the play­ing field in one’s favour.
  • Violation of ‘right to know which is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression. (which checks the possibility of any quid pro quo between the government and the private)
• Uncapping donations create a resource gap: The scheme avoids a level playing field by removing all pre-existing limits on political donations, allowing the big corporations to buy politicians.
  • This defeats the entire purpose of democracy, which, as R. Ambedkar pointed out, was not just to guarantee one person, one vote, but one vote, one value.
  • In many advanced countries, for example, elections are funded publicly, and principles of parity ensure that there is not too great a resource gap between the ruling party and the opposition.
• Information asymmetry: Since donations are routed through the State Bank of India, the government can determine who is donating to which party, but not for the political opposition to know.
• Gaps in government defence: Unclear what preventing black money has to do with donor anonymity, making donations limitless etc.
• Institutional corruption due to foreign donations: Black money being routed through shell companies.
• Biased preference: Vast majority of sums donated through electoral bond scheme over the last three years have gone to the ruling party

Role of courts in restoring electoral legitimacy: Courts remain the only independent body that can adequately umpire and enforce the ground rules of democracy.

• Reduce Inaction and delay: E.g. Case filed in Supreme Court in 2018, unheard for three years.
• Sensitive and proactive judicial intervention in cases that seek to skew the democratic process.