The Supreme Court stumped the Modi administration in a 5-0 unanimous judgement that declared the electoral bonds unconstitutional. The administration was stunned as seven years had already elapsed on the scheme and thought it was a ‘fait accompli’. The decision was hailed as a milestone judgement upholding ‘The Right to Information’ of the citizen as paramount. The system of issuing anonymous electoral bond was declared unconstitutional, totally opaque, lacking transparency and violative of article 19(1)(a) [Freedom of speech, expression and right to information].
The Constitutional bench propounded the doctrine of ‘Quid pro quo ‘a Latin phrase (which means something in exchange for something). SC also applied the doctrine of ‘Double Proportionality’ where anonymity cannot be selective known to the ruling party but NOT known to opposition/voters. Supreme Court ordered the SBI to disclose the names of the anonymous donors by March 6 to the election commissioner and by March 15 to put up on its official website for the cognizance of the people. The SBI probably under immense pressure from the government wanted to wriggle out of the situation by requesting time till 30th June, to give the data, post-election, citing complexity of decoding data of 22,217 bonds. SC put its foot down and ordered to furnish the data within 24 hours before 06th March.
SBI finally complied just before the deadline fearing contempt, the bonds have a unique identification number which could facilitate decoding. It is an open secret that enforcement agencies raided corporate houses to cough up donations to BJP, cases were withdrawn soon after the donations, possibly exposing the ‘Quid pro quo’ nexus between the donor and the policy decisions of the Government. Disclosure could open a ‘Pandoras Box’, possible source of embarrassment to the Government just before elections.
In the relevant years 2017 to 2024, the ruling BJP has received Rs.6566 Cr., which is more than half the share of the total value of bonds issued, 10 times the legal expenditure allowed for all the party candidates put together, this money could be misused to give incentives to voters and horse trading, by any party, it has no relevance to curbing black money as often trumpeted. Bonds can be purchased through a KYC-compliant accounts. Million-dollar question? How can you prevent black money being funnelled into white electoral bonds via fictitious shell companies? Before the scheme was introduced the political parties had to make public the name of all donors above Rs 20,000. Also, no corporate company was allowed to make donations amounting to more than 7.5% of the average profit of last three financial years at present there is no cap. A party that amid loud chest thumping and standing on high moral ground came to power claiming there was a ‘cache’ of black money in Swiss Banks, brought in the demonetization ‘Blitz’, with the empty promise that every Indian would get 15 lakhs windfall into their bank accounts never materialized.
|President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dr Adish C Aggarwala has thrown a spanner at the SC by making a petition to the President of India not to disclose the name of corporate donors, why? is he protecting the rights of the corporates? or the lawyers/voters? What is his ‘Locus Standi’? Supreme Court has become the last beacon of hope to save our democracy and has stood up to its stature lately. In Punjab Mayor elections it upheld the winning AAP candidate against Machiavellian fudgers. Last but not the least, our salute to the ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’ (ADR) who filed this bitter-sweet PIL via a battery of eminent lawyers to triumphantly uphold the flag of democracy.
Long live our democracy!
