The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: Ashok Lavasa, the first Election Commissioner in the history of independent India, to have stepped down from his role in August 2019, in the wake of a series of controversial actions by the Modi government against him shortly after the last general elections, has raised pointed questions on the role of the government whilst formulating the concept of electoral bonds or the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS).
Electoral bonds have been struck down as “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court in February, 2024, but not after the ruling BJP secured at least Rs 8261 Crore worth of money, anonymously, from corporate donors and individuals, creating a huge gap with resources available with the political opposition.
Lavasa, writing in The Hindu, says the most intriguing thing is that while Section 7(4) of The Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, says that information furnished by the buyer “shall be treated confidential by the authorised bank and shall not be disclosed to any authority for any purposes, except when demanded by a competent court or upon registration of criminal case by any law enforcement agency”, the ‘designers’ of the EBS are also saying “that the bank could not have legally kept any record of the secret number on the bond issued to the purchaser (in keeping with the provision of anonymity enshrined in the EBS). If this is the case, it would be almost impossible to establish any link between purchaser and recipient.”
SBI must have data, as it has said it does
Lavasa is saying this inconsistency is critical. If, he says, the “alphanumeric number in the bond was only embedded to verify the authenticity of the bond and thus meet the audit requirement. The bond was akin to currency”, then “how could SBI, when forced to disclosed to an enforcement agency, reveal the identity of the purchaser but limit the scope of the investigations only to the sources of funds? Does this not rule out the possibility of providing the donor-political party link, thereby eliminating the clue that would be vital to probe allegations of a quid pro quo?”
He pertinently asks, “Does it mean that the EBS created fiction — of the enforceability of the law and the accountability of the bank towards the court and the law enforcement agency?”
Also, “if the SBI did not maintain any record, on what basis did it ask for time to collate information on the bonds that would link both the parties? The Supreme Court too in the April 2019 interim order observed that the information is not behind “iron curtains incapable of being pierced”? He asks if SBI had not maintained information matching donor, to unique number and the recipient political party, how could it claim to have the information?
The former Election Commissioner says that it is the SBI affidavit due today (March 21) that will shed more light on this matter.
The way forward
Lavasa ends by expressing deep disquiet with the messaging being put forth by the BJP’s leaders and via WhatsApp messages, trying to justify the massive funds, half of the anonymous bonds since 2018 being reaped by them, as being justified due to having more MPs. Lavasa thought does not name the BJP when he writes, “where are we headed with a public debate where the gravity of an offence is sought to be determined by per capita crime? Why are political parties not determined to accept clean money, and not funds that are “furtively slipped under the door”? Will political parties keep holding up the mirror to each other and leave people blinded?”
BJP’s definition of itself being a ‘party with a difference’ too gets knocked. “People crave for political parties with a difference but not those so different that they look alike. How long can we accept the specious explanation that people get the government that they deserve? I think voters deserve better. They deserve a bond of probity”, he writes.
Another Election Commissioner, Arun Goel suddenly stepped down from his position, coincidentally, hours before Supreme Court was to hear a matter involving Electoral Bonds. The reasons for his sudden departure and not known. Lavasa and Goel’s departures both took place in the second tenure of the Modi government.
Lavasa was the only member of the three-man Election Commission who had rule that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had violated the Model Code of Conduct while campaigning for the 2019 general election. He was selected as a potential candidate for surveillance just weeks after his dissent, The Wire reported as part of the worldwide ‘Pegasus’ spyware revelations in 2021.