The Supreme Court has declared the electoral bond scheme unconstitutional and canceled it. The Court has also demanded an account of the contributions made over the past five years. So the Election Commission will have to make public which party received how much donation over the past five years. As a strong supporter of the right to information and transparency, one can only congratulate the Supreme Court judges on this historic decision. There will be many discussions on the pain or happiness of those who donate millions of rupees to political parties or election funds. However, along with this, the request to the Supreme Court still stands on a strict decision on curbs of money and muscle power in elections. Firstly, despite welcoming the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, it’s possible that an appeal may be filed for its reconsideration in the coming days.
Yes, it’s better to have a public account of the finances of parties and donor companies within a set deadline. This could also become a significant issue in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. But will it truly affect the majority of voters? People vote based on the promises and benefits offered by leaders and parties, considering the pros and cons. Yes, due to dissatisfaction with a certain ideology or capitalism, an individual may favour or oppose a particular party or independent candidate. However, in my 50-year experience, even before liberalization, wealthy industrialists or local businessmen used to give money to parties or candidates through cash or cheques.
The locals also had an idea of who was providing the assistance. The treasurers of political parties used to handle the party’s work very honestly. During the past years, electoral candidates have been publicly declaring details of their assets to the Election Commission. But despite this, the number of politicians who spend millions has increased not only in the legislature but also in municipal corporations.
Similarly, without bonds, as in the old system, they can continue to spend on elections or party expenses through cash, cheques, or in their supporters’ names. Similarly, the number of MPs with criminal cases is not low in the Lok Sabha. That’s why the Supreme Court, in one of its decisions, had told parties to clarify the status of tainted candidates. Despite years of debate and court directives, the number of MPs with criminal records, has been increasing in the Lok Sabha. In 2004, the percentage of tainted representatives was 24%, which increased to 30% in 2009, 34% in 2014, and after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, it reached 43%.
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench had directed in a judgment in September 2018 that tainted candidates should make their criminal records public prominently, so that the public remains informed. However, leaders have not yet properly implemented it. Therefore, the court has once again given directions. There is no doubt that political activists face cases because of agitation or victims of prejudice, but in many serious cases, when there is enough evidence for charge-sheets, leaders and parties should feel ashamed.
The real reason for the criminalization of politics is that parties and their leaders used to seek the support of certain types of powerful criminals and wealthy individuals for electoral success. Gradually, these criminals and wealthy individuals became interested in coming to power themselves. Most parties started feeling this compulsion. During Narasimha Rao’s rule, the situation became so dire that in Madhya Pradesh a very controversial gangster was nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Such mafia-like leaders often manage to reach legislative bodies by getting elected from some party or the other. You won’t find such a dire situation in any other democratic country in the world. There may be such complaints in some African countries, but the world wants to see India as an ideal. In this context, not only are some parties and leaders trying to raise doubts about EVMs in every Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha election, but if they win, they find the machines fine, and in case of defeat, they allege manipulation and tampering in the machine. Some experts or journalists in the media also express doubts.
This is a very sad situation because it not only makes the poor and less educated voters but also urban voters consider voting unnecessary and wrong. While technological advancements are being made by the country’s renowned IT experts, during the election reform campaign, rules and laws should also be made to curb such rumours. After all, any election can be challenged in court. For maintaining faith in democracy, there should soon be a unanimous decision on extensive electoral reforms and the idea of one nation, one election.
During Congress rule long ago, the Election Commission had recommended that a law be enacted to prevent candidates from contesting after being charged, but many such recommendations are pending before governments and parliamentary committees. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also urged for separate courts and decisions for cases involving MPs, ministers, etc., but perhaps the courts do not have enough judges. Leaders of ruling parties in states are also trying to avoid such scrutiny. Only the government, Parliament, and the Supreme Court can implement decisions with full seriousness.