India’s Supreme Court ,
A program that let people provide money to political parties anonymously was overturned by India’s highest court because it was deemed unlawful.In an effort to increase transparency in political fundraising, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced electoral bonds in 2018.However, detractors claim it has had the opposite effect and increased process ambiguity.The majority of the money came through the bonds and were given to Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The plan was contested as a “distortion of democracy” before the Supreme Court.
India’s Supreme Court ,A five-judge constitution bench decided on Thursday that citizens’ rights to access government-held information are violated by election bonds.The Right to Information (RTI) statute is “not confined to state affairs but also includes information necessary for participatory democracy,” according to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.”Political parties are relevant units in the electoral process and information about funding of political parties is essential for electoral choices,” he stated.
The government-run State Bank of India (SBI) was ordered by the court to stop issuing these bonds, reveal the identities of people who purchased them, and supply the Election Commission with information on any bonds that each political party has redeemed within a week.
Additionally, it noted that there were other initiatives to reduce the use of cash or “black money” than electoral bonds and requested that the government look into them.”Citizens have a duty to hold the government accountable for their actions and inactions, and this can only happen if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy,” the judge stated.Since a large portion of the funding for Indian elections comes from private donations, the government had justified the policy, stating that its introduction was intended to do away with financial contributions to political parties.
These time-limited, interest-free bonds come in predetermined denominations of 1,000 to 10 million rupees (about $12.50 to $125,000; £10 to £99,560) and can be bought from a state-owned bank at particular times of the year.
They can be donated to political parties by individuals and businesses without disclosing their identities.
The bonds are only available to registered political parties that have received 1% or more of the total votes cast in the most recent election for a state assembly or parliament. These parties have 15 days to cash the bonds.
Proponents of the plan contend that it preserves contributor anonymity while facilitating transparent and verifiable funding of political parties.
Critics counter that the bonds are not totally anonymous because the donor and recipient are both listed with the state-owned bank, which makes it simple for the governing administration to obtain information and “use” it to sway donors.
They also state that the identities of the bond purchasers and the recipients of the donations are not publicly available.
Therefore, taxpayers are unaware of the source of the gifts, regardless of to whom the donation was made.
Petitioners contended in court that this encourages corruption and thwarts the public’s right to know how political parties are funded.
The administration refuted the accusation and argued that donor confidentiality was required to protect them from “any retribution from political parties”.
29 tranches totaling 160 billion rupees ($1.9 billion; £1.5 billion) have been sold of electoral bonds thus far.
Getting 57% of the bonds, compared to 10% for the main opposition Congress party, suggests that the BJP is the main winner.
By,HHM