Transparent and illicit money also impact politics and elections, as the current situation and resistance are strong. Because such money doesn't reach future-oriented and progressive forces. They also refrain from using such money due to ethical boundaries and limitations. The decision of India's Supreme Court to scrap the 'Electoral Bonds' issued on February 15 sparked global discussions and debates. The five-member bench led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud made this decision.
Some aspects of the decision are so influential and significant that it can pave the way for notable ideological propositions for global democracies. Its practical purpose is equally relevant and powerful. This decision scrutinizes the election expenses of political parties and candidates in democracies. Some prevalent practices and decisions in democratic countries can become subjects of enthusiasm, inspiration, and caution for global democracy because the fundamental principles and global sentiments of democracy are the same.
The 'Electoral Bonds,' initiated by former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in 2017, were a legal provision and practice. He introduced amendments to financial laws, company laws, and tax laws in the Union Budget 2017-2018 to establish the prevalence of Electoral Bonds. The State Bank of India issued Electoral Bonds as per the management done by Arun Jaitley. Corporate houses or donors bought these bonds. The amount spent on purchasing bonds was considered eligible for tax deduction. When any buyer purchased these bonds from the State Bank, it indirectly meant giving donations to political parties. These bonds were available in denominations of 1 thousand, 10 thousand, 1 lakh, and 10 lakhs.
The details of the bonds purchased by the buyers and which party they intended to donate to were supposed to be disclosed, but the banks didn't make these details public.
The amount received from the sale of bonds was transferred to the relevant party's bank account by the State Bank of India. However, the details of the bond buyers and the amount they donated were kept confidential. According to statistics, 60% of the amount from the sale of such bonds went to the ruling party, Bharatiya Janata Party, while the opposition party, Indian National Congress, received only 10%. The remaining 30% was divided among various other parties.
From the decision of the Indian Supreme Court on February 15, it can be inferred that three key points can be drawn. The influence of transparent and illicit money on politics and elections is significant. Because such money doesn't reach future-oriented and progressive forces. They also refrain from using such money due to ethical boundaries and limitations.
In a democracy, the finances of political parties and election expenses must undergo essential reforms and management.
First, the financial life of a political party should be different from its activities. It is necessary to inquire how political parties and candidates can receive money and what amount should be received.
Second, anyone who supports any party or candidate financially should be able to do so only through the banking system, disclosing the information publicly as per the instructions of the Election Commission.
Third, there must be arrangements for 'State Funding' of political parties based on the votes received.
Fourth, 'Corporate Funding' should be transformed into 'Basket Funding' in the Election Commission, so that the amount of basket funding should be distributed equally among all participating parties or made available to all equally in terms of election campaign materials.
Fifth, the accounts of party funds should be audited by auditors and registered chartered accountants twice, and the Election Commission should also conduct checks.
Sixth, informally collected political donations and support should be prohibited and penalized. All kinds of undisclosed donations and transactions related to election expenses must be legally punishable.
Lastly, after the decision, the Supreme Court directed that within six weeks, all Electoral Bonds sold in the past seven years should be disclosed in the Election Commission.