SC verdict on election bonds is a vote for informed choice and a bulwark against sophisticated corruption

Imagine you are an investor in a company that issues shares in a public issue. You suddenly realise the company does not report its results to you and instead gives a fat pay hike to its CEO who happens to be the son of the chairman.

Would you be upset? Would you be upset more if you realise that the CEO in question offered big discounts on the company 's products to his school friends and didn't report it in sales statements?

If your answer is yes, the Supreme Court verdict against electoral bonds should not surprise you.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

After the Supreme Court of India's ruling that struck down anonymous/confidential electoral bonds as a means to donate to political parties, I am surprised how middle class investors who are aware of corporate conduct when it comes to investing in shares do not extend the same logic to political parties and processes.

The verdict led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud makes it clear that lack of transparency and denial of appropriate information to the average voter are such that the electoral bond scheme violates the Constitution of India.

Whether you are an investor or a voter, the right you enjoy is based on the principle of conscious, free and informed choice.

This is why the Election Commission and it's corporate counterpart Securities and Exchange Board of India insist on appropriate disclosures -- such as antecedents, assets and related party deals involving key candidates and officials.

Electoral bonds were ostensibly meant to end the influence of black money in elections but much in its design smelt of a quid pro quo that could hide a covert sweetheart camaraderie between donors and their political patrons.

As the scheme was cleared by parliament, it was legal but only in a technical sense, much like a board resolution of a private company. It took the might of the country's highest court to call this bluff as it requires a nuanced understanding of the deeper principles of the Constitution.

True, unlike the erstwhile "Licence Permit Quota Raj" of the pre-1991era, post-reform India has less scope for corruption. But it must be remembered that "licence buying ' by stealth is only a clearer version of corruption. Every policy framed by a government even in a liberal economy is potentially one that creates winners and losers. Every allocation made by a government department in the public interest creates business opportunities for private parties.

Thus, even in the best case scenario, electoral bonds can be used as instruments of influence peddling by business lobbies. That is just sophisticated corruption.

Things can get worse where the ruling party or government through state-controlled banks like the State Bank of India has disproportionate access to confidential information on electoral bonds. What is the guarantee that a corporate donation to an opposition party will not lead to adverse outcomes for the donor?

The SC verdict should thus be only a starting point for deep discussions on how transparency as well as truly free choices should be exercised in political behaviour.

Much like minority shareholders receiving protection from regulators of corporate law, special provisions may be required to ensure a fair regime for political funding to support less privileged voters.

State funding of elections is an idea worth discussing. The vote, in any case, must take precedence over the 'note' in a context where poor voters may be empowered by the ballot but are often misguided through smoke-and-mirror techniques that create an asymmetry of relevant information in addition to noisy propaganda.

Until and unless there's a high level of public awareness, institutions like the judiciary, the academia, mass media and civil society organisations need to play a custodial role in strengthening democracy.

The Association for Democratic Reforms that spearheaded the case against electoral bonds deserves a special mention in this instance. No court can help a democracy in which litigant citizens are not smart enough to build a strong case.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)