E-Paper
Grand Tamasha: Decoding implications of SC’s electoral bond ruling
Two weeks ago, a five-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court ruled that electoral bonds—a controversial instrument of political giving introduced by the Narendra Modi government—violated the Constitution and would immediately cease operating
Two weeks ago, a five-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court ruled that electoral bonds—a controversial instrument of political giving introduced by the Narendra Modi government—violated the Constitution and would immediately cease operating. Under the court’s ruling, the State Bank of India (SBI) will immediately stop issuing bonds; the Election Commission of India (ECI) must disclose details of all transactions since April 2019; and any bonds which have not yet been deposited are to be refunded.
On last week’s episode of Grand Tamasha, a weekly podcast co-produced by HT and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, host Milan Vaishnav played the role of guest, answering questions about the implications of the Court’s ruling posed by Leah Verghese, a scholar with DAKSH, a Bangalore-based non-profit working on judicial reforms and access to justice.
Vaishnav, whose volume Costs of Democracy: Political Finance in India (co-edited with Devesh Kapur) was cited by the justices in their unanimous opinion, hailed the ruling as a victory for proponents of transparency in political funding. But he also warned that the opaque system of political funding that existed before the bonds era was no paradise and was in dire need of reform.
Vaishnav said it was imperative that ordinary citizens pay attention to the methods of political funding in India. “We have accumulated evidence to show that access to personal wealth, or networks of wealth, have become a non-negotiable requirement of contesting office in India—especially at the state and national levels,” said Vaishnav. “Access to wealth has become a litmus test for whether you are going to be a competitive candidate. There is decreasing space for the proverbial aam aadmi to be a political representative.” But he also emphasized that “large-scale giving…creates the possibility of quid pro quos between well-endowed supporters and officeholders. For instance, “if a company is bankrolling a politician or a political party, it might well expect policy or regulatory favors once they are in office.” The trouble with electoral bonds, noted Vaishnav, was that the lack of disclosure requirements meant no voter, journalist, or civil society group would be able to connect the dots between donor and recipient.
Asked whether the public listing of electoral bonds, as ordered by the Court, would result in explosive revelations—Vaishnav was circumspect. He mused that either the SBI or the ECI might seek to delay the disclosures before the upcoming parliamentary elections and that the Court might let the deadline slide. “We know how the Indian judicial system works,” he remarked. “It is instructive that we got a judgment in the electoral bonds case in 2024. This was a scheme announced in 2017 and formally notified in 2018.”
But even if there are no procedural delays, he expressed scepticism that a detailed mapping of the bond scheme would be made public. “SBI has been asked to create a list of electoral bonds which have been purchased—and by whom? And [to create] a list of electoral bonds which have been received by parties and in what denominations. Those two pieces of information do not necessarily have to include a mapping of one to another.” While he noted that the two lists can be linked in theory, the fine print of the Court’s ruling does not explicitly spell this out.
