In a significant legal development surrounding electoral bonds, the Supreme Court reproved the State Bank of India for its failure to disclose comprehensive data related to the anonymous donation system for political parties. The apex court had previously invalidated the electoral bond scheme, emphasizing the need for transparency and mandating the disclosure of complete information on political donations over the last five years.
Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, directed SBI to provide detailed data including the bond numbers to elucidate the connection between donors and political parties. The Court’s intervention followed a petition by the Election Commission, which highlighted the partial nature of the data provided initially.
The controversial scheme, launched by the current ruling party in 2018, was struck down as unconstitutional amid concerns that it could foster a ‘quid pro quo’ scenario. The Election Commission, which had been instructed to maintain a copy of the documents submitted to the court, found itself in a position where it needed the court’s help in recovering those documents to comply with previous directives.
Businesses such as the Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) and Coimbatore’s Future Gaming and Hotel Services Private Ltd were among the heaviest purchasers of electoral bonds, with the former under scrutiny in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme (KLIS) for the alleged excess payment, and the latter charged for money laundering by the Enforcement Directorate.
Data from the State Bank of India revealed a significant number of electoral bonds had been purchased and redeemed, raising questions about anonymous political funding. The Election Commission’s two-part disclosure made public the names of political parties and corporations involved in the electoral bond transactions. However, the disclosed information still lacks clarity on the direct link between specific donors and the parties they funded.
Several prominent political parties have redeemed the funds obtained through these bonds, initiating a push for an even more transparent and accountable system. Following the hearing on March 18, the Election Commission has taken steps to seek the return of documents from the court, underscoring the unresolved complexities of political finance and the continued push for transparency.
The latest proceedings underscore the judiciary’s role in ensuring electoral finance transparency, upending the anonymous nature of the scheme that raised ethical and legal questions. It remains to be seen how the disclosure of these bond details will affect the political landscape and the ongoing dialogue around the transparency of campaign funding.