Thick veil of secrecy
Transparency is an uncompromisable aspect of any functioning democracy. Against the backdrop of recent developments surrounding electoral bonds, questions regarding transparency and accountability within the electoral funding domain have once again resurfaced. The State Bank of India's (SBI) plea for an extension till June 30 to submit details of electoral bonds has sparked widespread concern and scepticism among political observers, activists, and opposition parties alike.
The journey of electoral bonds scheme, from inception to implementation and abrogation, has been shrouded in controversial opacity. Quite recently, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India deemed the scheme 'unconstitutional', ‘violative of RTI', and 'illegal' — directing the SBI to disclose donor details by March 6. However, instead of adhering to the apex court's directives, the SBI has sought a four-month extension, citing logistical hurdles in collating data. The extension plea, viewed sceptically by opposition parties and civil society alike, prima facie smacks of a desperate attempt to obfuscate vital information until the conclusion of general elections. INC president Mallikarjun Kharge aptly highlighted the suspicious timing of the sought extension, accusing the government of using the SBI as a shield to conceal its dubious dealings. The insinuation that the BJP stands to benefit from this delay creates an urgency of decoding the truth behind the electoral bonds saga.
As per SBI's assertion, it would require four months to compile data on a mere 22,217 electoral bonds. This assertion defies logic and reeks of deliberate procrastination, especially in an era where technology enables real-time data processing. Experts and activists have raised legitimate concerns regarding the plausibility of such a prolonged timeline, considering the public sector bank’s remarkable infrastructure and digital capabilities. The process of purchasing and redeeming electoral bonds, as elucidated by experts, involves meticulous documentation and verification procedures. The presence of digital records at every stage of the transaction begs the question: why does the SBI need additional time to reconcile data that should be readily accessible? The discrepancy between the SBI's claims and the technological advancements of the digital age presents a curious case of the need for greater scrutiny of the matter.
Furthermore, the SBI's plea for an extension also undermines the sanctity of the Supreme Court's verdict and overshadows public trust in democratic institutions. By delaying the disclosure of donor details, the SBI risks perpetuating a culture of opacity and impunity, wherein political parties can operate in a manner shielded from public scrutiny. Opposition parties have condemned the SBI's extension plea as a ‘travesty of justice’ and a blatant attempt to shield the government from accountability. Their scathing indictment of the government's alleged efforts to conceal electoral funding data resonates with citizens who yearn for transparency and accountability in governance. Organisations like Association for Democratic Reforms are exploring legal options to challenge SBI’s application. Instead of being dragged to the court, the public sector bank must understand the importance of timely revelation of the funding details, and strive to cross surmountable challenges to furnish data in a time-bound manner. As ultimate stakeholders of democracy, it is incumbent upon citizens to demand accountability, uphold transparency, and ensure that the veil of secrecy surrounding the electoral bonds scheme is lifted once and for all.
