The Controversy Surrounding Electoral Bonds and SBI’s Non-Disclosure.Part-2

Introduction

In this blog post, we will discuss the concept of electoral bonds and why the State Bank of India (SBI) is not disclosing the Supreme Court order about these bonds. Electoral bonds have been a topic of debate and controversy in recent days/years, and it is important to understand their implications for transparency in political funding.

What are Electoral Bonds?

Electoral bonds are financial instruments that can be purchased by individuals or organizations from authorized banks. These bonds can then be donated to political parties. The main objective behind the introduction of electoral bonds was to bring transparency to political funding by making it easier to track the flow of money.

The Impact of Electoral Bonds on Political Funding in India. Part-1

The Controversy

While the concept of electoral bonds was introduced to promote transparency, it has faced criticism from various quarters. One of the main concerns raised is that the identity of the donor is not disclosed to the public or the Election Commission. This lack of transparency raises questions about the influence of corporate donors on political parties.

The Supreme Court Order

In April 2019, the Supreme Court of India passed an order stating that political parties must disclose the details of all donations received through electoral bonds to the Election Commission. This order was seen as a significant step towards ensuring transparency in political funding.

SBI’s Non-Disclosure

Despite the Supreme Court order, the State Bank of India, which is the authorized bank for issuing electoral bonds, has not disclosed the details of the bonds and the donations received by political parties. This has raised concerns about the bank’s compliance with the court order and its commitment to transparency.

Reasons for Non-Disclosure

There are several reasons why the SBI may not be disclosing the Supreme Court order about electoral bonds:

1. Legal Challenges: The SBI may be facing legal challenges or uncertainties regarding the disclosure of electoral bond details. The bank may be seeking clarifications or guidance from the court before making any disclosures.

2. Political Pressure: Political parties and their supporters may be exerting pressure on the SBI to withhold the disclosure of electoral bond details. This could be due to concerns about the impact of transparency on their funding sources and political strategies.

3. Lack of Infrastructure: The SBI may argue that it does not have the necessary infrastructure or systems in place to collect and disclose the details of electoral bond donations. Implementing such a system would require significant resources and coordination with political parties and the Election Commission.

Importance of Disclosure

The disclosure of the Supreme Court’s orders on electoral bonds by the State Bank of India (SBI) is essential for several reasons:

1. Transparency: Disclosure of the Supreme Court’s orders would provide clarity and transparency regarding the legal framework and implications of electoral bonds. This would enable citizens to make informed decisions and hold political parties accountable for their sources of funding. In a democratic society, transparency is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that the will of the people is accurately represented.
2. Accountability: The disclosure of the Supreme Court’s orders would facilitate accountability by ensuring that political parties and individuals involved in the electoral bond scheme are held responsible for any violations or misuse of funds. When the public is aware of the court’s orders, they can monitor the actions of political parties and demand accountability if any wrongdoing is detected. This accountability is crucial for upholding the principles of fairness and justice in the electoral system.
3. Public Interest: The Supreme Court’s orders on electoral bonds are of significant public interest, as they directly impact the functioning of democracy and the transparency of political funding. The disclosure of these orders would serve the public interest and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry. When the public is aware of the court’s orders, they can actively participate in the political process, express their concerns, and advocate for necessary reforms. This active engagement is vital for a vibrant and inclusive democracy.
4. Trust in Institutions: Transparency and disclosure are essential for building trust in institutions. The disclosure of the Supreme Court’s orders by the SBI would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability, enhancing public trust in both the bank and the electoral process. When institutions are open and transparent about their actions, it fosters trust among the public, which is crucial for the stability and legitimacy of democratic institutions. Trust in institutions is the foundation of a well-functioning democracy.
5. Legal Precedence: The disclosure of the Supreme Court’s orders on electoral bonds by the SBI would also set a legal precedence for future cases. When the court’s orders are made public, they become part of the legal record and can be referred to in subsequent cases. This not only guides the judiciary but also ensures consistency and predictability in the interpretation and application of the law. Legal precedence is essential for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring justice for all.

Implications for Transparency

The non-disclosure of electoral bond details by the SBI has significant implications for transparency in political funding. Without knowing the identity of the donors, the public is unable to assess the influence of corporate interests on political parties. This lack of transparency undermines the democratic process and raises concerns about the integrity of the electoral system.

The Way Forward

To maintain the integrity and credibility of the electoral process, transparency and accountability must remain the cornerstones. In light of the current situation, the concerns surrounding SBI’s non-disclosure of the Supreme Court order relating to Electoral Bonds must be addressed promptly. It’s crucial for both the bank and the political system to ensure robust transparency mechanisms are in place, as this not only strengthens democracy but also fosters public trust and participation.

Conclusion

The issue of electoral bonds and the non-disclosure of the Supreme Court order by the SBI highlights the challenges faced in ensuring transparency in political funding. It is essential for all stakeholders, including banks, political parties, and the judiciary, to work together to address these challenges and uphold the principles of transparency and accountability in the democratic process.