Electoral bonds explained in simple terms!

In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian elections, the concept of electoral bonds introduced in 2017, has been a significant yet controversial pivot in political funding. These special financial instruments were designed to allow individuals and corporate entities to contribute to political parties anonymously. Sold by the designated branches of the State Bank of India (SBI), these bonds could be purchased and then donated to any registered political party, keeping the identity of the donor under wraps. This feature of anonymity was double-edged; it offered protection to donors from potential backlash or undue influence while casting a shadow on the transparency of political contributions.

Electoral bonds were essentially interest-free banking tools, functioning much like a promissory note, available in denominations ranging from one thousand to one crore rupees. An intriguing facet of these bonds was their redemption period; they had to be redeemed by political parties within 15 days of issuance, directly into their designated bank accounts. The scheme was explicitly designed to encourage donations through banking channels, aiming to clean up the system of political funding by ensuring traceability and audit trails, albeit without disclosing donor identities to the public.

However, on February 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India struck down the electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional. This landmark decision underscored concerns regarding the anonymity feature of the bonds, which, according to the court, potentially facilitated "quid pro quo" arrangements and was violative of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and voters' right to know about political funding. The court's ruling not only demanded the cessation of the scheme but also mandated the disclosure of donor and recipient details, which were to be published by the Election Commission of India, marking a significant shift towards transparency in political funding.

The introduction of electoral bonds was a bold attempt to reform political donations, aiming to sanitise the influence of money in politics. Yet, the scheme's journey from inception to its eventual downfall illustrates the delicate balance between donor privacy and the public's right to transparency in democratic processes. The Supreme Court's ruling signals a pivotal moment in India's ongoing dialogue on electoral reform and political transparency, reminding us that the path to clean politics is fraught with challenges and necessitates a nuanced approach that safeguards both donor privacy and the electorate's right to information.