Turning points have come but rarely in the ten years of the Narendra Modi government, given its astounding success in maintaining an iron-clad, surveillance-driven grip on every institution in the country. The Supreme Court verdict of February 15 that outlawed electoral bonds is emphatically one of them, and needs to be recognised as another chance that has been given to us, as Indians, to redeem our besmirched republic.
This moment stands as testimony to the Supreme Court’s capacity to assert itself, something we felt it had become incapable of doing. It remembered its obligations to the Constitution and to one of its foundational principles – Article 19 1(a) guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression as well as the concomitant right to information.
The question is, would the court have done the right thing and outlawed electoral bonds if it had not been for the dogged resistance of an unsung, often attacked and abused tribe, sometimes derided as the “RTI-wallahs”? It is these women and men who kept up their date with the courts, tarikh-pe-tarikh, along with their praetorian guard of constitutional lawyers.
As journalist Nitin Sethi, tweeted: “It wasn’t 1 or 2 people or organisations. Many such as @SauravDas and the Common Cause, Anjali B and her colleagues, Venkatesh @mediatrack, @poonamjourno,@Amannama,@SharanyaHK. With @CommodoreBatra &@adrspeaks leading. It took a village. But it ain’t over…”
They did this right from the days when the electoral bond scheme was introduced as part of the Finance Bill in the Budget of February 2017. Within a span of six months, the lead petitioners Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, were already knocking on the doors of the Supreme Court. Altogether in the final hearing of the case there were five petitioners – apart from the lead petitioners, there were three tagged petitions representing the CPI(M), Dr Jaya Thakur of the Congress, and banking lawyer Spandan Biswal.
With the mainstream media generally preferring to look the other way, the Modi government could drive a truck through the objections raised by various authorities to the electoral bond scheme. The Reserve Bank, as the recent apex court judgment noted, had as early as January 2017 written to the Finance Ministry objecting to the proposal which it argued militated against its own authority to issue bearer instruments. Later Urjit Patel, who was then governor of the apex bank, conveyed to the finance ministry his views on the risks of money laundering, forgery and cross border counterfeiting that could emanate from the issuance of the bonds.
Interestingly, the Election Commission of India also displayed some spine in those early days. The judgment observed that on May 26, 2017, the ECI wrote to the Ministry of Law & Justice, pointing out that the amendments to the IT Act, RPA, and Companies Act introduced by the Finance Act 2017, will have a “serious impact on transparency of political finance/funding of political parties”. The ECI also expressed concern over the negative impacts that removing the cap on corporate donations would have.
Over time, one by one, these institutions fell silent, with the Modi government displaying extraordinary gumption and persisting with the scheme. And why would it not? The electoral bonds arrangement proved to be a cornucopia that the late finance minister, Arun Jaitley, had bequeathed his party, which gave and gave.
The only group that kept pushing back against it was the “RTI-wallahs”. It was their persistence which led to the Supreme Court admitting in its order of April 13, 2019, that the scheme gave rise to “weighty issues which have a bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process”.
But that bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, refused to grant interim relief. A month later, in the general election that followed, the BJP emerged with an even bigger margin of votes than it had notched earlier (assisted undoubtedly by the generous flow of funds in its direction).
Despite this discouraging trajectory, the petitioners kept filing petitions, time and again, but to little avail. On occasion the petitioners even met with hostility from their lordships. When the petition came up before a bench led by then chief justice, S.A. Bobde, it was not only rejected but firmly rebuffed with the words, “there cannot be repeated applications seeking the same relief”.
The days passed. In October 2023, with a new general election on the horizon, the apex court was once again approached by the petitioners. The bench led by the present chief justice saw the issue as one of “importance” and referred it to a constitution bench. A couple of hearings took place and a judgment was arrived at on November 2, 2023, which was reserved. The rest, of course, is history.
Why is this back story important for journalists?
It is all about information, the life force of the profession. Many serious journalists – not of course the bejewelled and suited types inhabiting prime time – realised its worth and the value of chasing this story. They went on to unearth the unique alphanumeric number on the bond certificates; access file notings; and keep a river of information flowing.
The argument that the petitioners made to the court was straightforward: the opacity that marked the scheme “defeats the people’s right to know about the funding of political parties and promotes corruption.” The Modi government, in its response was having none of that. It actually put forward the mind-blowing counter-argument that “citizens did not have a ‘general right to know regarding the funding of political parties’, and emphasised that ‘right to know’ itself is not a general right available to citizens” (‘Part of Secret Ballot’: How the Modi Govt Backed Electoral Bonds in the Supreme Court’, February 16).
Such arguments did not fortunately convince the bench. There was no getting away from the fact that “anonymity” was crucial to the electoral bond scheme, yet this very non-disclosure of information on electoral contributions was clearly violative of the right to information of the voter and therefore the freedom of expression guarantee in the constitution. This was the line the petitioners chose.
The court, when it weighed in, cited two phases of court rulings on Article 19 (1)(a). The first linked the “right to information to the values of good governance, transparency and accountability” and recognised the role of citizens in holding the state accountable for its actions and inactions and argued that they must possess relevant information in order to do this. In the second phase, the focus was on the evolution of the jurisprudence on the right to information. In the second phase, various rulings had recognised that “effective participation in democratic governance is not just a means to an end but is an end in itself.”
But how important to this process is information on political funding? The bench headed by CJI Chandrachud dwelt on this question and concluded that such information was essential if the voter is to exercise their franchise in an effective manner.
Therefore, “the Electoral Bond Scheme to the extent that they infringe upon the right to information of the voter by anonymizing contributions through electoral bonds, are violative of Article 19 (1)(a).”
The power of information to animate democracy was the leitmotif of this judgment.
§
Imran Khan ‘virtually’ won
Pakistan, or should we say Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, has beaten India in weaponising AI for electoral purposes – a trend that will almost certainly play out in the coming general election in this country later this year. But for Khan it was a case of necessity proving once again to be the mother of all invention. When he found himself in jail, for various alleged political crimes including fraud last August, he did not allow his incarceration to end his political ambitions.
Before long an audio clip of his voice generated by AI addressed millions on social media in what was quickly labeled as a virtual election rally. The provenance of his speech had an interesting back story. It emerged from a script dictated by Khan in jail and a text-to-audio AI model was used to convert it into a speech which is believed to have drawn over 1.4 million views.
That was just the beginning of a frenetic period of campaigning for Khan – virtually. As the Pakistan general election drew closer, a four-minute declamation scripted in jail, vetted by lawyers, worked on by techies using an AI tool from ElevenLabs, went on to electrify the party base by mid-December. It was a hit, especially among the youngsters (Pakistan like India has a disproportionately higher number of young adults in its population of 240 million).
This time Khan’s audience on social media had quadrupled defeating the cynical stratagems of the Pakistan Army that went out of its way to bind the man and gag him – politically speaking. Apps were created so that the Voice could now seamlessly inhabit the Facebook and WhatsApp space.
On counting day it was discovered that despite the man being in jail, the independents associated with his party had together got more votes than their counterparts, notching wins in 97 out of 265 seats. When his rivals claimed to have won, once again the AI version of Imran Khan emerged, this time with a victory speech complete with rhetorical embellishments characteristic of the original: “My beloved countrymen. By turning out in such huge numbers and exercising your democratic right of franchise, you have laid the foundation for the restoration of the freedom to exercise citizens’ rights. I congratulate you all on helping us win the elections handsomely.”
In the end, of course, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s party (PPP) cobbled up an understanding to form the next government, leaving Imran Khan by the wayside despite his “victory”.
This also means that the virtual Imran Khan will continue to rock Pakistan’s political boat in the years to follow.
§
Voices airbrushed out of the frame
These lines jumped out of the page for me:
“The families of those who had died on 22 December were not moved. Speaking about the new solar lights that had been set up across the village under Operation Sadbhavana, Lal’s daughter-in-law, Rangeela Begum, told me, ‘They blacked out our lives and are now installing solar lights…this is no substitute for justice. It’s just hooliganism.’
“For the affected families, the bundles of cash they received—Rs 10 lakh for the dead and lesser for the injured—were expected to replace their loved ones. Nazir, Shaukat’s father, was visited by the commanding officer of the 16 RR and a brigadier, who handed him Rs 10 lakh. Vali was given the same amount. He told me he did not know what to do with it. “We are labourers and I have worked my whole life with the border roads organisation,” he said. “I raised my children in extreme poverty and hoped one day they will take care of me when I get old.” The money would do little to help. Farooq got Rs 2.3 lakh, while Irfaan got Rs 1.5 lakh. Fazal was given Rs 2.5 lakh. Now barely able to walk, he told me the money was meaningless. “I have five kids and a family of seven to support. I don’t see myself being able to work ever again.” (‘The Caravan’s Article on Army Torture the Union Government Wants Taken Down’, February 13)
§
Vanessa Dougnac is deported
It is shameful that former South Asia Correspondent for La Croix, Le Point, Le Temps, Le Soir, who has lived and worked as a professional in India for over two decades, has been deported by the Indian government for her independent reporting on the affairs of the country.
There are many in the Indian journalistic community who found this act of deportation abhorrent and a violation of media freedom in a democracy.
Her farewell letter was widely covered in the print media, along with its resonating opening lines: “I am writing these words in tears. Today, I am leaving India, the country where I came 25 years ago as a student, and where I have worked for 23 years as a journalist. The place where I married, raised my son, and which I call my home. Leaving is not my choice” (French Journalist Vanessa Dougnac Leaves India Amid Expulsion Threat’, February 16).
§
Readers write in…
Media repression and farmers’ protests
Sujata Madhok and A.M. Jigeesh, president and general secretary respectively of the Delhi Union of Journalists, wrote in: “The Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) is deeply concerned that journalists are among those injured by police action during the farmers’ protests. Two journalists, Satender Chauhan and Niel Bhalinder Singh, suffered injuries while covering the protests at the Shambhu border yesterday.
“Satender Chauhan, correspondent for Aaj Tak, was ‘live’ on the channel when he was hit by a ‘chharra’ in the eye area. The channel showed a colleague helping him to leave the spot. He was taken to hospital. Niel Bhalinder Singh of the Savera group of newspapers was taken to hospital bleeding heavily as a tear gas shell fired by a drone fell on his head. Unconfirmed reports have also come in regarding injuries to other journalists.
“The Patiala Media Club and the Chandigarh Press Club have demanded safety for journalists covering such events. The DUJ is also concerned at the Internet shutdown imposed in seven districts of Haryana and three districts of Rajasthan which has made it extremely difficult for journalists to cover the protests. They also note that social media accounts of some journalists including Mandeep Punia of Gaon Savera have been taken down.
“DUJ condemned the violence on protesting farmers that has led to injuries and hospitalizations. They urged the central government to ensure that the farmers’ demands are settled amicably.”
§
My response:
Reporting on the farmers’ agitation has always been fraught.
In 2021, eight journalists who had reported on the violence that broke out on Republic Day in Delhi, including the founder-editor of The Wire, had sedition and other criminal charges brought against them. This time, a Wire piece, ‘Agenda Is to Silence Us’: Key Social Media Accounts Withheld, Farmers Vow to Boycott Centre’s Meetings’ (February 14), has highlighted how X accounts and Facebook pages of prominent farmer leaders as well as many others have been withheld.
The government also banned official pages which supported the movement and posted updates on it, like @Tractor2twitr_P run by Bhavjit Singh, Bhartiya Kisan Union (Shaheed Bhagat Singh) and Progressive Farmers Front, run by Guramneet Singh Mangat.
What’s more, the process of withholding these accounts has been largely understood to be opaque.
A very interesting aspect of this repression was highlighted by Bhavjit Singh, who is associated with the @Tractor2Twitr_i page on X. In a conversation with the Wire which was quoted in the story, he pointed out that the accounts were withheld even as farmer leaders were sitting at a meeting with union ministers on February 12.
He added, “We have an assumption that it is not just the Union government but the Punjab government too which was involved in singling out farmer union leaders’ accounts. This is a dangerous trend, as those accounts which were running propaganda against farmers are getting support while the official mouthpieces of farmers meant to debunk the propaganda and misinformation are being targeted.”
Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in.
