In the realm of financial governance, the autonomy and independence of a nation's central bank are pillars of stability and credibility. However, revelations surrounding India's Electoral Bonds (EB) scheme have brought to light a disconcerting narrative—a narrative that suggests that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the country's apex financial institution, was pressured and continues to be forced to bend under the weight of political influence. This unfolding story exposes a troubling aspect of India's democracy, where the government's interests seem to overshadow the principles of transparency and accountability, effectively undermining the integrity of free and fair elections.
Read More: Israel Hamas War: Misinformation is killing as many as the bombs in Gaza
We Have a Request for You: Keep Our Journalism Alive
We are a small, dedicated team at The Probe, committed to in-depth, slow journalism that dives deeper than daily headlines. We can't sustain our vital work without your support. Please consider contributing to our social impact projects: Support Us or Become a Member of The Probe. Even your smallest support will help us keep our journalism alive.
As the nation grapples with questions surrounding the transparency and integrity of India's electoral funding system, a ray of hope emerges from the highest echelons of our judiciary. The Supreme Court has notified a 5-Judge Bench to deliberate on the contentious issue of Electoral Bonds. This crucial case is set to be heard on October 31, and its timing couldn't be more crucial. On Tuesday, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will examine a series of petitions that challenge the very essence of the Electoral Bond scheme. The bench comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Notably, the decision to refer the matter to this 5-Judge Bench was made on October 16, when a 3-Judge Bench, consisting of the CJI, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra, recognised the gravity and significance of the issues at hand.
As the nation's highest court gears up to address this controversial issue, an unsettling development emerged recently when the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani in a statement filed before the Supreme Court in the Electoral Bonds case said that the citizens do not have the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution pertaining to the funding of political parties. In doing so, the Attorney General has forcefully rebuffed the argument put forth by the petitioners, who stand in opposition to the Electoral Bonds scheme. These petitioners contend that citizens have a fundamental right to know the sources of funding for political parties.
Stay informed with The Probe. Get original stories, exclusive insights, and thoughtful, in-depth analysis delivered straight to your phone. Join our WhatsApp channel now! Click the link to join: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaXEzAk90x2otXl7Lo0L
Read More: Doping in India: A Looming Crisis Threatening Fair Play
In 2017, India witnessed a development that sent shockwaves through its democratic foundations - the introduction of the Electoral Bond scheme. This controversial move was tucked away within the folds of the Finance Bill, 2017, during the Union Budget for 2017-18. Then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, in his proposal, sought to amend the Reserve Bank of India Act to pave the way for the issuance of Electoral Bonds for the purpose of political funding. Moreover, to make matters worse, political parties were granted exemption from paying income tax on the funding they received. This marked the beginning of a dark era of massive political corruption in India.
The EB scheme was presented to the public as a means of promoting transparency in political funding. However, what unfolded in reality was far from this lofty goal. Instead, it became a tool that threatened the very essence of democracy in the world's largest democracy.
One of the most alarming aspects of the EB scheme was the secrecy surrounding it. Donors could purchase these bonds anonymously, leaving the citizens in the dark about who was financing their elected representatives. It allowed for powerful interests to influence the political landscape without accountability, ultimately undermining the democratic principles.
While the Electoral Bond scheme was introduced in 2017, its true impact didn't materialise until the Department of Economic Affairs officially notified the scheme in 2018. Since then the country witnessed a disturbing nexus between money and power with massive amounts of undisclosed funding flowing into political coffers.
The introduction of India's Electoral Bond scheme was shrouded in controversy right from the beginning and has raised serious concerns about the government's intent, particularly in its potential for massive, large-scale corruption. This intent becomes especially evident when examining the timeline of events surrounding the scheme's inception.
On September 14, 2017, the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Dr Urjit Patel, expressed the RBI's preference for issuing Electoral Bonds in dematerialized (demat) form. Patel's suggestion for demat bonds was grounded in the principles of transparency and accountability. However, this advice seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.
Letter dated September 14, 2017, written by the then RBI Governor Dr Urjit R Patel to the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley stressing the need for digital transactions of EBs as opposed to physical transactions
In another letter dated September 27, 2017, Patel wrote to Jaitley, highlighting the RBI's concern over the government's decision to amend Section 31 of the RBI Act, despite the bank's recommendations to the contrary. Patel's letter provides a stark warning: "Now that the RBI Act has been amended, the government should in the least not authorise any other institution to issue EBs."
Patel also noted that the moment the proposed scheme of EBs in scrip form is operationalised, there would be a possibility of that helping black money to be laundered and this would invariably expose the government and the RBI to adverse public criticism and consequent loss of goodwill for both. He asserted that the EB scheme as proposed by the government will not only be seen as facilitating money laundering but on the contrary it will be seen as intended to enable it.
This stance raised significant questions about the government's priorities. It appeared that the administration was more concerned with safeguarding the secrecy of donors making contributions to political parties than with upholding the citizens' right to transparency regarding the funding sources of these parties. This perspective underscores a troubling aspect of the EB scheme: a seeming disregard for the principles of open democracy. The citizens of a nation have a legitimate interest in knowing who is financially supporting the political entities they vote into power.
Letter dated October 5, 2017 written by Subhash Chandra Garg, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance to RBI Governor Dr Urjit R Patel
Handwritten note dated September 29, 2017, by Secretary, Economic Affairs, Subhash Chandra Garg calling the RBI’s approach “anachronistic” over Electoral Bonds.
This note once again highlights a significant tension between the RBI's commitment to accountability in the electoral bond scheme and the government's apparent prioritisation of donor anonymity over the citizen’s right to know.
What is truly shocking is that despite the RBI expressing its reservations about issuance of electoral bonds in the form of physical bearer bonds, thousands of crores of electoral bonds have been issued between 2018 and 2023 using the very same method which the RBI cautioned the government against. Commodore Batra took it upon himself to uncover this information. After obtaining responses to his Right to Information (RTI) queries, he accessed critical documents from both the Ministry of Finance and the State Bank of India.
The government's attempt to influence and bend the central bank to its will in the matter of electoral bonds can be attributed to a complex interplay of political and financial interests. Electoral Bonds, as a method of political funding, provide a certain level of anonymity to donors. This anonymity can be appealing to those who wish to make substantial contributions to political parties without disclosing their identities. By maintaining this secrecy, political parties can receive large donations without the potential scrutiny that might accompany full transparency. This is particularly beneficial for ruling parties, as it allows them to tap into significant financial resources discreetly.
Such a dominant share of electoral bond funding for a single political party raises several important questions and concerns. It points to a significant financial advantage that the BJP has enjoyed over other parties, potentially affecting the level playing field in Indian politics. It also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in political funding, as the source and intent of such substantial contributions may come under scrutiny.
Given these factors, it becomes evident why the government may have sought to bend the central bank to its preferences. Ensuring that the Electoral Bond scheme continued to function in a way that protected donor anonymity and facilitated significant financial contributions to the ruling party would have been advantageous from a political standpoint.
However, this advantage comes at the expense of transparency and accountability in the political funding process. It raises concerns about the integrity of the electoral system and the influence of money in politics, as well as the potential for financial imbalances among political parties.
(With additional inputs from Inderpal Singh)
To ACCESS and SUPPORT our exclusive stories and impactful public interest journalism, subscribe to our YouTube channel. Click on THE PROBE'S LOGO below to subscribe.