Author: Vani Paigwal, Lords University
ABSTRACT
India’s adoption of electoral bonds has generated intense discussion over how to strike a compromise between donor privacy and political financial transparency. The legal and constitutional aspects of electoral bonds are examined in this article, with particular attention paid to how they relate to Articles 19(1)(a), 14, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It looks at the legal system, court rulings, and criticism from international watchdogs and civil society. The paper emphasizes the urgent need for reforms to advance accountability and fairness in India’s election system by examining the effects of hidden political finance.
Legal Framework: Under the Finance Act of 2017, the Electoral Bonds Scheme of 2018 was established, enabling people and organizations to buy bonds for contributions to political parties.
Constitutional Concerns: By encouraging opacity in political fundraising, the plan, according to critics, transgresses the rights to knowledge, equality before the law, and free speech.
Effect on Democracy: The plan has been connected to worries about corruption, corporate power, and a decline in public confidence in democratic procedures.
The concept of non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 and the theory of reasonable constraints under Article 19(2) are both touched upon by electoral bonds. The non-disclosure clause in the plan is thought to run against substantive due process and open governance.
THE PROOF:
Studies conducted by groups such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) show that ruling parties have obtained over 90% of electoral bonds, casting doubt on their objectivity. The Supreme Court’s Public Interest Litigations (PILs) contest the scheme’s legitimacy, pointing to possible financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency.
CASE LAWS
LOK PRAHARI V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
The issue of candidate asset disclosure was discussed, with a focus on election process transparency.
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) V. UNION OF INDIA (2003)
This case upheld the right of voters to learn about candidates, which is somewhat related to the right to knowledge regarding political financing.
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA (2002)
The right of voters to election transparency was established.
BRIJ BHUSHAN V. STATE OF DELHI (1950)
Relevant to discussions over anonymous donations, emphasized the value of free speech and expression in a democracy.
CONCLUSION
The Electoral Bonds Scheme, which attempts to reduce unreported monetary donations while instituting anonymity, is a conundrum in India’s democratic system. Although the goal of lessening black money is admirable, the opaqueness of the plan compromises democratic principles and accountability. Legislative changes and judicial action are necessary to bring the plan into compliance with constitutional values and rebuild public trust in political financing systems.
FAQS
What are Electoral bonds?
Introduced to encourage clean finance, electoral bonds are financial instruments that can be used to donate to political parties in India.
What makes electoral bonds controversial?
Because of the anonymous donations, the plan has come under fire for encouraging opacity and giving preference to ruling parties.
Which legal issues have been raised up in relation to electoral bonds?
Citing violations of Articles 19(1)(a), 14, and 21, Public Interest Litigations (PILs) at the Supreme Court cast doubt on the scheme’s validity.
What changes to electoral bonds are proposed?
Mandatory donor identity disclosure, restrictions on corporate donations, and more stringent independent body oversight are some of the reforms.
What effect does the plan have on Indian democracy?
In contrast to democratic ideals, a lack of transparency erodes voter confidence and encourages unequal political control.
