The Supreme Court of India’s judgment declaring the Electoral Bonds scheme “unconstitutional” is undeniably a substantial setback for the Centre and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The apex court’s accompanying directive to the State Bank of India (SBI) to furnish to the Election Commission of India (ECI) details of donations, including donor names and details of the political parties that have received the contributions, and for the ECI to publish these, is double trouble for the Narendra Modi government.
Any suggestion, from overzealous party leaders and supporters, to brazen out this setback and restart the scheme after papering over objectionable clauses via the ordinance route before the upcoming Lok Sabha polls, would expose the Union government’s claims of fighting black money and corruption.
Also, efforts to restore electoral bonds to fund political parties would make the BJP vulnerable to the accusation that it closely associates with crony companies and select industrialists. As it is, the BJP stands accused of parliamentary subterfuge because it circumvented the Rajya Sabha, where it did not have a majority then, by getting wide-ranging amendments to necessary Acts like The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, The Income Tax Act, 1961 and The Companies Act, passed solely by Lok Sabha as part of a ‘Money Bill’.
The BJP and the Modi government are not the first to be accused of close ties with select corporates. However, Modi’s connection with a handful of corporates since his Gujarat days has come in for far greater scrutiny. None of this has ever stuck on the BJP or Modi. But, efforts to bring back the bonds through another route will make him and the party vulnerable to this allegation.
While the landmark verdict, although much-delayed, is a victory for democracy, it would be naïve to see it as a great game-changer insofar as the impending general elections are concerned.
Numerous media reports highlight the huge advantage that the BJP has had in securing corporate donations, and that it has secured much above 50 per cent of the total worth of electoral bonds. That said, the Congress and regional parties — especially those running state governments — too have received significantly higher donations, much more than what regional parties in the opposition in various states have received.
Given that the apex court reserved its judgment in November, it can be safely presumed that the BJP would have been prepared for various scenarios, including the worst — as it eventually turned out.
The BJP might be politically prepared for the situation, but the unanimous verdict by the five judges is a moral defeat for the Modi-led BJP because the scheme was introduced in 2018. This is perhaps the first time that an initiative by the Prime Minister has been called out for being a quid pro quo arrangement.
The court stated that there was a “possibility” that donors could make contributions in return for beneficial policies. But, the judges did not go beyond this and suggest anything more substantive. However, the apex court’s observation is a victory for the Opposition, particularly Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who is undeniably the most vocal critic of Modi’s corporate connections.
For decades now the public has been aware of the influence of money in politics and elections. What the electoral bond changed was that it institutionalised this influence and gave a huge advantage to the ruling party, both at the Centre and states. The February 15 judgment is likely to influence undecided voters, who form a crucial percentage across many constituencies — and this should be a matter of concern for the BJP.
If the Opposition intends to make the most of this judgment and make it an election issue, innovative campaigns and effective communication highlighting how these bonds have not provided a level playing field must be highlighted.
The Opposition must effectively communicate to the people that the Modi government went ahead with the electoral bonds because it did not wish the public or its adversaries to know which companies were funding it. For the Opposition to do so, it must be above reproach. While batting for more transparency, the Opposition must also demand that the RTI mechanism be reinvigorated by filling in vacancies, etc.
The political impact of the judgment is unclear at this stage, and one cannot rule out the possibility of efforts to overturn or reduce the impact and transparency this judgment promises to bring. Only an attentive civil society can prevent this from happening again.
(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, a Delhi-based journalist, is author of 'Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times'. X: @NilanjanUdwin.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.