SC verdict on electoral bonds: A misjudgment for Indian democracy

It derails reform and is a testament to the judiciary’s unwavering independence

The anonymity provided by electoral bonds has been a point of contention, yet it is widely misunderstood. This feature was designed as a protective shield for donors, safeguarding them from potential backlash or victimisation for their political affiliations or support. (Representational Image)

In an era where transparency and accountability in political funding are more crucial than ever, the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) recent judgment declaring electoral bonds as ultra vires marks not just a setback but a colossal misjudgement that threatens to derail years of progress towards cleansing India’s political financing system. Electoral bonds were introduced with a vision to revolutionise political funding by introducing an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability. By mandating that all political donations be made through formal banking channels, the government took a bold step towards dismantling the stronghold of black money in politics. This initiative aimed to ensure that every rupee contributed to the political sphere was accounted for, traceable and legal.

The anonymity of electoral bonds promotes a healthier, more inclusive political funding environment. However, the SC’s judgment overlooks these critical benefits. By focusing narrowly on the potential for misuse, the Court disregards the broader context. This ruling not only halts progress but also implicitly endorses a return to the opaque, cash-driven practices that have plagued Indian politics for decades.

The resistance to electoral bonds echoes the opposition faced by other reformative measures, such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Both initiatives were met with scepticism and legal challenges, yet they share a common goal: To enhance transparency and accountability within key democratic processes. The discrepancy in the acceptance of these reforms reveals a selective approach to transparency, one that is willing to embrace change in certain areas but not others.

This judgment sends a chilling message to reformers and policymakers alike, suggesting that efforts to clean up the murky waters of political funding will be met not with support but with obstruction. At a time when the integrity of democratic processes is increasingly under scrutiny, this decision represents a thousand steps back, pushing us further away from the ideal of a transparent, accountable, and clean political system.

In light of this judgment, there is an urgent need for dialogue. Stakeholders across the political and social spectrum must come together to challenge this decision, highlighting the potential of electoral bonds to transform political funding. The narrative must be reframed, emphasising that the true risk to democracy lies not in the misuse of electoral bonds but in the unchecked flow of black money into the political arena. The SC’s ruling on electoral bonds should be seen not as the final word but as a call to action. It is imperative that we engage in a constructive, informed debate about the future of political funding in India, exploring ways to refine and improve the electoral bond scheme rather than abandoning it.

ALSO READ | Electoral Bonds case verdict: What parties argued before Supreme Court

It is also essential to revisit now the broader discourse surrounding the SC’s independence and its relationship with the executive. Critiques, particularly from opposition quarters, have oscillated dramatically, citing instances like the Article 370 and Ram Mandir judgments as evidence of the Court’s alleged alignment with the government. However, the decision on electoral bonds presents a compelling counter-narrative, underscoring the Court’s autonomy. It challenges the narrative posited by some factions that the SC has ceded ground to executive influence. By meticulously applying the law, the Court reaffirms its role as the guardian of constitutional principles, disproving accusations of partiality.

Story continues below this ad

This judgment should not be seen merely in the context of its immediate impact on electoral financing but as a testament to the judiciary’s unwavering independence. The critique of the Court’s supposed favouritism towards the government is negated by its consistent adherence to legal rigour and constitutional fidelity. Considering this, it is also incumbent upon critics to acknowledge the nuanced role of the Supreme Court in balancing complex legal and constitutional mandates, free from the binary of political allegiances.

The writer is vice president, Mumbai BJP and managing partner, Parinam Law Associates