Alas, all good things must come to an end.
The so-cosy bonds between well-known, albeit nameless, benefactors and Johnny-come-lately nation-builders have finally been sundered by a Constitution that remains wise to canny shenanigans, peddled as salutary for transparency.
That this once there have been no ifs or buts to the top court’s pronouncement bodes well for democracy.
For once also, the verdict leaves no room for talk-backs. Nor does the Ordinance route seem to promise much respite for the powers-that-be.
Dates have been set for when the State Bank of India must convey to the Election Commission the names of bond-buyers, the dates and amounts of purchase, and the names of those benefited thereof; and for the Election Commission in turn to communicate the gathered data on its website to the people who “gave to themselves” the Constitution.
The supremacy of the elector’s/citizen’s right to information under Article 19(1) (a) and via the RTI Act has been held to be non-negotiable.
What has thus far been sold as a transparency law has been questioned as a probable conduit for quid pro quo- bribery between the anonymous donor and the state, and a possible money laundering mechanism as well.
Most of all, the declaration of who is paying which political outfit has been pronounced as indubitably essential to the citizen’s exercise of choice, and thereby to the “basic structure” of “free and fair elections”.
Also read: Modi Government’s Tryst with Electoral Bonds Should Neither Be Forgotten Nor Forgiven
Bonds already bought but not deposited are ‘directed’ to be returned, although the further question of what is to happen to moneys already collected by parties through means now held to be unconstitutional remains unaddressed.
If the colossal advantage piled by the ruling party through such collections is to be cancelled, then the kitty they have in possession from such unconstitutional collections must logically be denied.
Inevitably, the other related question will also come to be asked: if forms of corruption in terms of quid pro quo and the investments from illicit sources come to be revealed, where may the buck of accountability stop?
This in particular must be of great relevance to a government that has routinely made loud noises about corruption, and thinks nothing of dispatching the ED here, there and elsewhere at the drop of or in pursuit of a vote or a whole government.
After all, the 6,000 or more crores garnered by the BJP may well have come in handy for conducting “Operation Lotus”, and for proliferating party assets in mind-boggling proportions.
Clearly, Caesar’s wife may come into consideration as the Election Commission shares the facts with the public.
The government side has argued in court that the confidentiality of the donor was put in place to protect such donors from likely vendetta after governmental changes.
That, after all, is only another way of saying that the donations have been made to further the prospects both of the donor and of the ruling political establishment.
All in a nicely legalised sort of way.
Clearly time has come to find a route to funding elections which obviates both corruption and undue lopsided advantage.
Some have for long argued for a system of state-funding in which sums are allocated in accordance with agreed principles of distribution based on voter strength, or the strength of elected membership across the board.
Also read: How the Selective Transparency of Electoral Bonds Was Designed to Benefit the BJP
Alternately, it has also been argued that corporates could do the funding, but deposit their donations with the Election Commission in broad daylight, and the Commission could then, in turn, make over funding to parties again on logical principles of equity.
The Supreme Court’s landmark blow to bolster democracy offers quite the moment for the political class and its institutions to put their heads together and come up with reforms that bear the transparent promise of rendering India’s electoral processes beyond reproach.
That is undoubtedly the need of the hour, much more than the other mischievous idea currently under propagation, namely that of one nation, one election, which is again wholly violative of the other “basic structure” of federalism.
The top court’s reinstatement of an all-important constitutional principle in defiance of state policy may give heart to public-spirited initiatives to lobby further to enhance the so-sanguine lead furnished by the honourable court.
Let the republic seize the moment.
Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.
