Deepfake Technology And Criminal Liability
Electoral Bonds and Criminal Transparency Debates in India
What Are Electoral Bonds?
Electoral Bonds were introduced by the Government of India in 2018 as a new mechanism for political donations.
These are essentially bearer instruments, like promissory notes, issued by specified banks, which can be purchased by any Indian citizen or company to donate to political parties.
The identity of the donor remains anonymous to the public, but the bank and the government know the identity.
The idea was to promote clean political funding and reduce the use of cash donations, which are difficult to trace.
Key Issues and Debates
Transparency vs. Anonymity:
Critics argue that electoral bonds promote opacity because the public cannot know the identity of donors.
This may lead to unaccounted money or “black money” entering politics under the guise of legitimate donations.
Supporters argue anonymity protects donors from political victimization and encourages more transparent banking transactions instead of cash.
Criminalization of Politics:
There is concern that electoral bonds may facilitate funding by individuals or entities with criminal backgrounds, further embedding corruption and criminality in politics.
The lack of transparency hampers public and institutional scrutiny.
Role of Election Commission and Judiciary:
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has expressed concerns about the impact of electoral bonds on transparency.
Various petitions challenge the constitutional validity of electoral bonds on the grounds of violating the right to information and free and fair elections.
Important Case Laws on Electoral Bonds and Transparency
1. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs Union of India (2019)
Background:
The ADR, a prominent NGO working on electoral reforms, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Electoral Bonds scheme.
Issues Raised:
The anonymity clause violates the right of citizens to know the source of political funding.
It affects free and fair elections by promoting unaccounted money.
Possible violation of Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom of speech and expression).
Outcome:
The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a final verdict but has sought responses from the government and Election Commission.
The case highlights the need for balancing privacy of donors and transparency in elections.
2. Common Cause vs Union of India (2019)
Background:
Common Cause filed a PIL demanding the disclosure of the identity of donors of electoral bonds.
Issues Raised:
Secrecy in electoral bonds leads to opacity in political funding.
The Government’s claim that anonymity is necessary to protect donors is challenged.
Significance:
The Supreme Court questioned the government about the necessity of maintaining anonymity.
Emphasized the right of voters to know the source of political funding.
3. Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2022)
Background:
This is a continuation of the challenge to the Electoral Bond scheme by ADR and other NGOs.
Key Points:
The Government argued that anonymity protects donors from political vendetta.
The Supreme Court observed that transparency is important for democratic accountability.
The Court called for a balanced approach, possibly through improved regulatory mechanisms.
4. Election Commission of India’s Intervention
Context:
In the wake of the Electoral Bonds scheme, the Election Commission of India submitted an affidavit expressing concerns.
Key Points:
The ECI stated that anonymity undermines transparency and accountability in elections.
Recommended that the identity of donors should be disclosed to the public.
Suggested that the scheme may promote "criminalization of politics" by allowing dubious entities to fund political parties anonymously.
5. Karnataka Election Commission vs Ramesh Kumbar (2020) - Related Transparency Issue
Background:
Though not directly about electoral bonds, this case involved the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidates.
Significance:
The Supreme Court emphasized the right of voters to know the criminal background of candidates.
The judgment strengthens the principle that transparency is crucial for the health of democracy.
This relates indirectly to electoral bonds, as anonymous funding may conceal funding by candidates with criminal backgrounds.
6. Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 29C
This section requires political parties to maintain records of donations above Rs. 20,000.
However, the introduction of electoral bonds has been argued to dilute this requirement, as donations through bonds can be anonymous and are exempt from public scrutiny.
Summary of Key Debates and Principles
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Anonymity vs Transparency | Electoral bonds promote donor anonymity, which may affect transparency and public trust. |
| Right to Information | Citizens argue they have the right to know funding sources for political parties. |
| Criminalization Concerns | Anonymous funding may facilitate entry of “black money” and criminal elements in politics. |
| Role of Election Commission | ECI advocates for disclosure and transparency to maintain election integrity. |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts have been cautious but emphasize balancing privacy and democratic transparency. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments