The Supreme Court has declared electoral bonds unconstitutional and ordered the State Bank of India to disclose all contributions to political parties from 2019 onwards, rejecting pleas for deadline extensions. Senior journalist and trustee of The Reporters Collective Trust Nitin Sethi joins News Brake this week to decode the mystery surrounding electoral bonds.
00:00:04
Speaker 1: In the last 26 days. What extent of matching has
00:00:08
Speaker 1: been done by you? What steps have you taken in
00:00:11
Speaker 1: the last 26 days? The application is absolutely silent on
00:00:14
Speaker 1: that
00:00:15
Speaker 1: on February 15th in a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court
00:00:19
Speaker 1: shook the political landscape by deeming the electoral bond scheme
00:00:23
Speaker 1: unconstitutional
00:00:24
Speaker 1: the scrapping of the scheme just months before the lok
00:00:27
Speaker 1: Sabha elections and seven years post its inception has sent
00:00:31
Speaker 1: quite a few shockwaves through the corridors of power but
00:00:35
Speaker 1: here's the kicker. The epic code wasn't done just yet.
00:00:39
Speaker 1: It dropped the bomb directing the State Bank of India,
00:00:42
Speaker 1: the scheme's issuing bank to spill the beads on every
00:00:45
Speaker 1: electoral bond contribution received by political parties from 2019 till
00:00:51
Speaker 1: date
00:00:52
Speaker 1: when the FBI pleaded for a deadline extension till June 30th,
00:00:55
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court wasn't having any of it. It put
00:00:59
Speaker 1: its foot down, demanding the bank to cough up the
00:01:01
Speaker 1: details by 5 p.m. on March 12th.
00:01:11
Speaker 1: Hi, you're listening to on Manorama Player podcast Newsbreak, a
00:01:15
Speaker 1: weekly show that breaks down news in a clutter free manner.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: This is Harita Benjamin and today we are here to
00:01:22
Speaker 1: discuss the huge controversy surrounding electoral bonds.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: So electoral bonds is a financial instrument which was introduced
00:01:30
Speaker 1: in India in 2018 to facilitate transparent political funding. These
00:01:35
Speaker 1: bonds were meant to serve as the means for an
00:01:38
Speaker 1: individual or a corporation to donate money to political parties
00:01:42
Speaker 1: without disclosing their identities. So yes, uh it is this
00:01:46
Speaker 1: anonymity factor that the Supreme Court found a problem with
00:01:50
Speaker 1: and let's see why.
00:01:51
Speaker 1: So today we are joined by esteemed journalist and trustee
00:01:55
Speaker 1: of the reporters collective uh trust Nitin safe to discuss
00:01:59
Speaker 1: the matter with us. Nitin and his team has been
00:02:02
Speaker 1: investigating electoral bonds since 2019 to bring out evidence uh
00:02:06
Speaker 1: to expose the scam within it. Their work has been
00:02:10
Speaker 1: put before the Supreme Court by the petitioners which had
00:02:14
Speaker 1: led to the judgment of scrapping the bonds in the
00:02:16
Speaker 1: first place.
00:02:17
Speaker 1: So, welcome to the show, Nathan and we can't wait
00:02:19
Speaker 1: to hear what you have to say on the matter.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: Thank you
00:02:22
Speaker 2: so much Harita for having me here with you.
00:02:24
Speaker 1: Great. Uh So let's begin with the basics. Could you
00:02:28
Speaker 1: brief our audience on why uh electoral bonds were conceptualized
00:02:32
Speaker 1: uh in India in the first place.
00:02:34
Speaker 2: So uh this is back in 2017 when uh the
00:02:37
Speaker 2: then Finance Minister Mr Harun Jetley introduces the idea of
00:02:41
Speaker 2: electoral bonds uh during the budget session.
00:02:45
Speaker 2: And uh he makes two contradictory statements in a paragraph
00:02:49
Speaker 2: that he says um electoral bonds are being brought in
00:02:53
Speaker 2: to raise the levels of transparency in electoral funding for
00:02:57
Speaker 2: political parties. And he says uh this would be done
00:03:01
Speaker 2: by providing uh security and privacy to donors by ensuring
00:03:09
Speaker 2: secrecy of who they are donating to. And um
00:03:15
Speaker 2: I think there is part justification in what he says
00:03:18
Speaker 2: that until then, a large amount of donations do come
00:03:22
Speaker 2: in the form of cash to political parties which is
00:03:25
Speaker 2: unaccounted for as well. And in 2018, then, uh he
00:03:31
Speaker 2: and his ministry brings forth the detailed rules of uh
00:03:38
Speaker 2: the electoral bonds process and he reiterates at that point
00:03:43
Speaker 2: uh to the parliament. And outside that there's a high
00:03:46
Speaker 2: need for a bank, a system which allows bank money
00:03:51
Speaker 2: or money through banking channels to be donated to political
00:03:54
Speaker 2: parties in secrecy to ensure that uh donors are not
00:03:59
Speaker 2: threatened by
00:04:01
Speaker 2: parties they don't donate to. And that he says with
00:04:04
Speaker 2: transparency and openness.
00:04:06
Speaker 1: All right. So uh the top uh court uh had
00:04:09
Speaker 1: actually said that the scheme was violative of the right
00:04:12
Speaker 1: to freedom of speech and expression under article 19 1
00:04:15
Speaker 1: a of the constitution. So, uh it held that the
00:04:18
Speaker 1: voters right to information
00:04:20
Speaker 1: includes the right to know the financial contributions to a
00:04:23
Speaker 1: political party. Now. Uh What you said is that J
00:04:26
Speaker 1: le used the same uh principle uh and saying that,
00:04:30
Speaker 1: you know, we are the, they are trying to defend
00:04:32
Speaker 1: them uh So that the political parties who are not
00:04:35
Speaker 1: contributed to uh don't take them to task. Right. Uh
00:04:39
Speaker 1: So I think it is the same principle which uh
00:04:42
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court used while striking down uh the electoral
00:04:46
Speaker 1: bond scheme. Right.
00:04:47
Speaker 1: So, could you elaborate on these uh fundamental b merits
00:04:51
Speaker 1: uh of the concept which was outlined by the Supreme
00:04:53
Speaker 1: Court and what you have seen?
00:04:57
Speaker 1: So, I think there were
00:04:58
Speaker 2: fundamental flaws to put it politely in what the government
00:05:02
Speaker 2: had suggested uh or brought forth in the name of transparency.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: It had brought forth a format of secrecy and opaqueness.
00:05:13
Speaker 2: Something that the election commission and the Reserve Bank of
00:05:16
Speaker 2: India had protested against very vehemently at that time and
00:05:20
Speaker 2: they've been overridden by the government. Uh for several big reasons.
00:05:24
Speaker 2: I think one that in the election process and a democracy,
00:05:29
Speaker 2: our elected representatives should only be answerable and accountable to
00:05:35
Speaker 2: voters and citizens.
00:05:37
Speaker 2: But in this case, they would naturally be accountable to
00:05:41
Speaker 2: donors who had secretly donated corrodes of rupees to them.
00:05:45
Speaker 2: And as the Supreme Court later held, no corporate would
00:05:51
Speaker 2: donate to a politician or a political party for any
00:05:55
Speaker 2: other purposes than perhaps furthering their own business.
00:06:01
Speaker 2: At the same time, uh creating a channel which allow
00:06:07
Speaker 2: foreign entities to also fund money secretly to Indian political parties.
00:06:13
Speaker 2: Uh To my mind, held a great threat to the
00:06:16
Speaker 2: integrity of Indian Democratic processes as we found. Um And
00:06:22
Speaker 2: that the system was built in a fashion where arms
00:06:27
Speaker 2: of the government would know a lot more about who
00:06:30
Speaker 2: was being, who was donating to whom than anyone else,
00:06:33
Speaker 2: including the citizens
00:06:35
Speaker 2: that it would skew the scheme in favor of anyone
00:06:39
Speaker 2: who was in power. In this case, the B JP.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: And as the data came out over years, we found
00:06:45
Speaker 2: that was true. Uh The party in power at the
00:06:48
Speaker 2: center B JP got a majority of the donations that
00:06:52
Speaker 2: came out of the electoral bond process um to the
00:06:56
Speaker 2: point that they, what they received was more than the
00:07:00
Speaker 2: next three parties put together and by a fair margin.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Um I think Supreme Court when it finally, after years
00:07:09
Speaker 2: uh passed his judgment on this case clearly held that
00:07:13
Speaker 2: citizens have a right to know um if Corporates are
00:07:18
Speaker 2: influencing their politics and the uh politicians and they have
00:07:21
Speaker 2: a right to know who's donating to political parties. And
00:07:25
Speaker 2: that was one of the contention that Supreme Court held
00:07:27
Speaker 2: while uh holding the electoral bonds unconstitutional.
00:07:32
Speaker 1: OK. So na uh could you like give us a
00:07:34
Speaker 1: few more uh statistics on, you know how the electoral
00:07:38
Speaker 1: bonds uh funding is placed? So we know for a
00:07:40
Speaker 1: fact that, you know, the B JP uh is having
00:07:43
Speaker 1: more but how much more uh you know, I've heard
00:07:45
Speaker 1: that it is around six times more than the, the second,
00:07:49
Speaker 1: you know, largest party. Uh and how much of its
00:07:52
Speaker 1: funds are actually sold through electoral bonds. Could you elaborate
00:07:56
Speaker 1: on that uh for our audience.
00:07:59
Speaker 2: Sure. So how your numbers are right? P JP did
00:08:02
Speaker 2: get roughly 6.5 times more than the next party uh
00:08:06
Speaker 2: which is the congress, the principal on uh composition party.
00:08:11
Speaker 2: Um And that doesn't give you a sense of the
00:08:13
Speaker 2: size uh if around 16 crows, if I'm not mistaken
00:08:18
Speaker 2: uh eventually, but in the electoral bonds process, a good
00:08:22
Speaker 2: 60 to 7 65% of that went to the B JP.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: Uh That's the quantum we're looking at in terms of
00:08:30
Speaker 2: how much it uh was a percentage of what V
00:08:34
Speaker 2: JP got. It was a very speedily rising percentage but
00:08:40
Speaker 2: it wasn't a substantive percentage of the overall duration that
00:08:44
Speaker 2: V JP got. Uh and must understand why that is
00:08:48
Speaker 2: still significant.
00:08:51
Speaker 2: The other donation that B JP and parties get is
00:08:54
Speaker 2: in the form of cash which is unaccounted for again,
00:08:57
Speaker 2: parties don't have to name where they got it from
00:08:59
Speaker 2: if they got it in small tranches. And that's what
00:09:03
Speaker 2: B JP was collecting a lot. But this was the
00:09:08
Speaker 2: largest tranche of bank money or money in the banks
00:09:13
Speaker 2: of B JP that it was finding very easily for itself,
00:09:17
Speaker 2: which meant it could make these payments for many things
00:09:20
Speaker 2: from hiring helicopter services and airplanes to write during elections
00:09:25
Speaker 2: to put ads all over newspapers and social media. Uh
00:09:28
Speaker 2: This was me being used where you would need bank
00:09:33
Speaker 2: channels to make payments at the same time, you would
00:09:37
Speaker 2: not know where this money is really come from. So,
00:09:39
Speaker 2: none of us, neither, you nor I nor any other
00:09:42
Speaker 2: citizens would be ever able to figure out
00:09:45
Speaker 2: if, uh, the money came from a foreign source, if
00:09:48
Speaker 2: money was generated out of, you know, hypothetically the drug
00:09:53
Speaker 2: markets or arms sale or whatever other illegal activity. Because
00:09:58
Speaker 2: if you remember the B JP government had amended the
00:10:01
Speaker 2: law to say, even if a company has made no
00:10:05
Speaker 2: profit whatsoever in the last some years.
00:10:09
Speaker 2: Uh So let's say you have a company which has
00:10:11
Speaker 2: done absolutely no business in several years. Even that company
00:10:15
Speaker 2: can donate hundreds and thousands of cars to a political party. Now,
00:10:20
Speaker 2: you can imagine if you and I were not making
00:10:22
Speaker 2: a rupee of income, but we were still donating hundreds
00:10:25
Speaker 2: of carrots to a political party. What everyone would think
00:10:27
Speaker 2: of us. You would wonder where this money is coming from,
00:10:30
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera.
00:10:32
Speaker 2: And this had been now legalized by the government. So,
00:10:36
Speaker 2: but the money as a full quantum of what B
00:10:40
Speaker 2: JP was getting was not substantive. It was less than
00:10:43
Speaker 2: half if I'm not mistaken, but it was rapidly increasing.
00:10:47
Speaker 2: So say from first tranche of sale of uh electoral
00:10:52
Speaker 2: bonds where B JP got somewhere around 200 kos, it
00:10:55
Speaker 2: had reached the point where it was now getting 1000
00:10:57
Speaker 2: Ks upwards.
00:10:59
Speaker 2: Uh So the money was increasing and the likelihood was
00:11:04
Speaker 2: that because general elections were coming up, the last window
00:11:07
Speaker 2: of electoral bonds would open very soon and thousands of
00:11:11
Speaker 2: corrodes worth of bonds would get sold and then cashed
00:11:15
Speaker 2: now, which the Supreme Court has prevented. Thankfully,
00:11:19
Speaker 1: but less than half is also a lot. Right? I mean, uh, uh, that,
00:11:22
Speaker 1: that when you look at the quantum, it's just huge.
00:11:26
Speaker 1: It's
00:11:26
Speaker 2: humongous because it puts all of the political parties at
00:11:30
Speaker 2: a great dis and again, the back to back you
00:11:35
Speaker 2: can see in our Indian politics where there's one party
00:11:39
Speaker 2: which uh can spend hundreds of
00:11:42
Speaker 2: roles on advertisement, et cetera, also mobilizes money through the
00:11:46
Speaker 2: government routes. I mean, it, I in my view, it
00:11:48
Speaker 2: also uh abuses the government exchequer by using their resources
00:11:53
Speaker 2: to promote its politics. But also audition is able to
00:11:57
Speaker 2: do ads rallies all over its scale that no other
00:12:01
Speaker 2: opposition political party can
00:12:03
Speaker 2: and an electoral democracy, that's a humongously unfair deal while
00:12:08
Speaker 2: we all know that parties in part do get more
00:12:10
Speaker 2: money than opposition. But uh sheer differential between them would
00:12:15
Speaker 2: mean that um we were setting up a democracy meant
00:12:19
Speaker 2: to fail,
00:12:20
Speaker 1: right. So it's like uh starting the race at two
00:12:23
Speaker 1: different points. Yeah,
00:12:25
Speaker 1: absolutely. Right. So uh let's move on to the most
00:12:29
Speaker 1: recent issue. Now, the SB I has stated that the
00:12:32
Speaker 1: data related to the issuance of the bond and the
00:12:35
Speaker 1: redemption of the bond were recorded in two different silos.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: So no central data base was maintained and uh donor
00:12:42
Speaker 1: anonymity was maintained. So that's what they are claiming and
00:12:46
Speaker 1: they sought an extension of the time till June 30
00:12:49
Speaker 1: saying that they need another four months to match uh
00:12:52
Speaker 1: these two silos.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: So uh is that claim credible? I was reading through
00:12:57
Speaker 1: your Twitter thread and you know, uh you said that,
00:12:59
Speaker 1: you know, they have uh the such a massive number
00:13:03
Speaker 1: of employees and a lot of resources at their disposal.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: So it shouldn't be a problem according to your evaluation. So,
00:13:09
Speaker 1: is that the case or uh you know, could you
00:13:12
Speaker 1: elaborate on this a little more?
00:13:15
Speaker 1: Sure. So uh
00:13:16
Speaker 2: let's go back to basics of how a bank works
00:13:19
Speaker 2: and that will help us understand whether the State Bank
00:13:22
Speaker 2: of India was being honest or not or less than honest, right?
00:13:26
Speaker 2: When you and I, either of us open an account
00:13:29
Speaker 2: in a bank and this can be anyone and we
00:13:32
Speaker 2: transact uh whether we take out money or deposit money.
00:13:37
Speaker 2: Uh the bank carries out several
00:13:41
Speaker 2: entries or what would you uh what you would think
00:13:44
Speaker 2: is accounting entries in its
00:13:46
Speaker 2: software to say, hey, here's a person who came and
00:13:50
Speaker 2: has taken out money and given to why
00:13:53
Speaker 2: uh it would create it in wise account. And at
00:13:55
Speaker 2: the end that entire transaction of where the money started
00:13:59
Speaker 2: from where it left and where it reached would be
00:14:03
Speaker 2: meticulously recorded because at the end, the bank in some
00:14:06
Speaker 2: sense is a custodian of your money. It cannot afford
00:14:09
Speaker 2: to let that money disappear in any form. Now, you
00:14:14
Speaker 2: could do that in the form of a check, you
00:14:16
Speaker 2: could do that in a form of
00:14:17
Speaker 2: electronic transfer through up I or other means. But at
00:14:21
Speaker 2: the end, every moment of your interaction with the bank
00:14:25
Speaker 2: is mapped and recorded in its software including at what
00:14:28
Speaker 2: point in which branch, which officer opened your account to
00:14:34
Speaker 2: make the transaction. Even that data is stored on the
00:14:37
Speaker 2: core bank software, a banking software of any bank.
00:14:43
Speaker 2: The electoral bonds is also in some sense, just another
00:14:46
Speaker 2: instrument to move money. It's a bearer bond which means
00:14:50
Speaker 2: it does not have the name of the person
00:14:53
Speaker 2: uh who will benefit from the bond. It is just
00:14:56
Speaker 2: say you and I went and bought a bond for
00:14:58
Speaker 2: say let's presume uh if we weren't in journalism a
00:15:01
Speaker 2: worth a bond and bond would have saying here's Mr
00:15:06
Speaker 2: X has bought this, here's a bearer bond. Whoever takes
00:15:10
Speaker 2: it to the SB I next will get that ₹1 crore.
00:15:14
Speaker 2: Now it's basically money moving hands and for any bank
00:15:18
Speaker 2: to maintain that
00:15:20
Speaker 2: it would necessarily have to have a transaction record of
00:15:24
Speaker 2: where it was bought uh against what bank account, whether
00:15:28
Speaker 2: it was by up I or by electronic transfer or
00:15:31
Speaker 2: by check, et cetera.
00:15:34
Speaker 2: And when you go back to the State Bank of
00:15:36
Speaker 2: India's internal records of how it would maintain these transaction.
00:15:40
Speaker 2: It is very clear and it's uh we reporters collectivist
00:15:44
Speaker 2: put this evidence out with documents
00:15:47
Speaker 2: that the bank would treat it as any other transaction,
00:15:51
Speaker 2: financial transaction where it would keep me records checking who
00:15:56
Speaker 2: has deposited this money, who's in cashing it. Um In fact,
00:16:00
Speaker 2: there was a special unit in the State Bank of
00:16:03
Speaker 2: India called the transaction banking unit in the Bombay corporate
00:16:08
Speaker 2: office of State Bank of India, which was particularly made
00:16:11
Speaker 2: in charge of this because this was a sensitive uh
00:16:13
Speaker 2: transaction involving political parties, et cetera.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: And uh that trail was maintained throughout. In fact, the
00:16:22
Speaker 2: documents we made public show that the State Bank of
00:16:25
Speaker 2: India insisted upon a method in which such an audit
00:16:29
Speaker 2: trail would be maintained for each electoral bond sold and purchased.
00:16:35
Speaker 2: Um But the bank at the end came back to
00:16:39
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court requesting for about three months time to
00:16:43
Speaker 2: disclose the data, claiming that
00:16:47
Speaker 2: the data was kept at various branches in physical form,
00:16:52
Speaker 2: what it called sealed envelopes and inside what it claimed
00:16:57
Speaker 2: to be silos. It said matching these would therefore take
00:17:01
Speaker 2: a lot of time to connect, who bought it to
00:17:04
Speaker 2: who and cashed. It would therefore take a lot of
00:17:07
Speaker 2: time because there are more than about 22 individual bonds
00:17:12
Speaker 2: that they would have to match.
00:17:14
Speaker 2: Um
00:17:16
Speaker 2: If you look back at what that really means. Here's
00:17:19
Speaker 2: a bank which deals in thousands of carols every day.
00:17:24
Speaker 2: Here's a bank that has more than 2.5, lack employees,
00:17:27
Speaker 2: all of them trained accountants. This is, this is not
00:17:30
Speaker 2: unskilled labor. Uh Some of the best account keepers in
00:17:34
Speaker 2: the country.
00:17:37
Speaker 2: A bank that does the rules of transactions on a
00:17:41
Speaker 2: daily basis. A bank that closes its accounts which means
00:17:45
Speaker 2: it tallies every account every evening. 365 days a year
00:17:51
Speaker 2: was claiming that 16 Karo's worth of data
00:17:56
Speaker 2: was sitting inside two boxes physically
00:17:59
Speaker 1: under
00:18:00
Speaker 2: their scrutiny. And nobody in their entire system in three
00:18:04
Speaker 2: or four years had looked at that data, which means
00:18:07
Speaker 2: neither the auditors, neither the Reserve Bank of India nor
00:18:11
Speaker 2: the top audit committee of the bank, which is a
00:18:14
Speaker 2: statutory committee had looked at it
00:18:17
Speaker 2: to me as somebody who in the past has uh
00:18:20
Speaker 2: been a failed chartered accountant. If I may say it
00:18:23
Speaker 2: is incredulous that uh a bank could even claim this.
00:18:27
Speaker 2: If it, if this was true, it could be a
00:18:30
Speaker 2: bigger banking scandal than the electoral bonds itself.
00:18:33
Speaker 1: That 16
00:18:34
Speaker 2: 1000 kos worth of records could be kept outside the
00:18:37
Speaker 2: banking system, unaudited, unchecked, unverified,
00:18:42
Speaker 2: and unsealed envelopes in the 21st century. To me, it
00:18:46
Speaker 2: would scare me about being a State bank of India customer.
00:18:49
Speaker 2: But we all know that was a half truth and
00:18:53
Speaker 2: a lie because the bank's own statements, its internal documents
00:18:58
Speaker 2: said otherwise. Um
00:19:02
Speaker 2: how can I say the other parallel you should think
00:19:04
Speaker 2: of is say this is a bearer bond parallel equivalent
00:19:09
Speaker 2: is say if the State Bank of India also sales
00:19:12
Speaker 2: and sales and purchases gold or billion, which is a
00:19:16
Speaker 2: you know asset, some value being held in a physical
00:19:19
Speaker 2: asset which does not have a number. So say they
00:19:21
Speaker 2: say the gold biscuit, it does not have a number,
00:19:24
Speaker 2: it does not have an identification unlike uh electoral bond
00:19:27
Speaker 2: which has a secret serial number
00:19:30
Speaker 2: yet. The bank is able to manage it, sell it,
00:19:34
Speaker 2: purchase it, keep stock of every milligram of it inside
00:19:39
Speaker 2: its banking system. Now, here's the same bank saying here's
00:19:43
Speaker 2: this Electoral Bond with a secret serial number which is
00:19:46
Speaker 2: meant to keep only an audit trail for the enforcement
00:19:50
Speaker 2: agencies as per law. And yet we've kept it in
00:19:53
Speaker 2: two so called boxes or silos in sealed envelopes and
00:19:57
Speaker 2: nobody knows what's in them.
00:19:58
Speaker 2: Uh So at many levels, it's incredulous. Um I'm being
00:20:03
Speaker 2: polite in saying it's half a lie. I would call
00:20:06
Speaker 2: it complete hogwash
00:20:07
Speaker 1: to be truthful, right? So now the Supreme Court has
00:20:11
Speaker 1: actually demanded to give whatever data you are, be it
00:20:14
Speaker 1: in silos or whatever, just give us what you have.
00:20:17
Speaker 1: So uh will it, will this data be useful if
00:20:20
Speaker 1: SP I is going to present uh these two separates
00:20:24
Speaker 1: of uh sets of data, can independent agents or you know,
00:20:27
Speaker 1: uh auditors actually match it and you know, find out
00:20:30
Speaker 1: the training. Is it possible?
00:20:34
Speaker 2: So, uh again, if you go back to yesterday's Supreme
00:20:37
Speaker 2: Court order on the contempt petition and the SB I's plea,
00:20:40
Speaker 2: the court has said you, so the petitioner, the SB
00:20:44
Speaker 2: I uh speaking on their behalf, Mr Harish Sal with
00:20:48
Speaker 2: the lawyer requested that
00:20:51
Speaker 2: it's very difficult and time consuming for the bank to
00:20:55
Speaker 2: match the donor with uh the beneficiary political party. In
00:21:00
Speaker 2: which case, the Supreme Court said we haven't asked for that.
00:21:02
Speaker 2: What we're asking is you just give us a separate
00:21:05
Speaker 2: list of all the donors and how much they bought
00:21:09
Speaker 2: and a separate unconnected list of how much each political
00:21:13
Speaker 2: party got in different tranches. Which means uh
00:21:17
Speaker 2: in my reading or my reading of the judgment that
00:21:20
Speaker 2: listening to the hearing yesterday, the bank is now not
00:21:24
Speaker 2: required to tell us
00:21:27
Speaker 2: who paid the money to a specific political party. Just
00:21:30
Speaker 2: that say you and I bought an electoral bond, but
00:21:32
Speaker 2: they'll never come to know whether we gave it to
00:21:34
Speaker 2: B JP or Congress. In my reading of the judgment,
00:21:38
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has also not specifically asked that the
00:21:43
Speaker 2: SB I reveal the secret serial numbers on each of
00:21:46
Speaker 2: the electoral bond through which it would be a matter
00:21:49
Speaker 2: of minutes to match the beneficiary against the donor even
00:21:54
Speaker 2: in case the bank hadn't.
00:21:56
Speaker 2: Uh I think that makes it fairly difficult to find
00:22:02
Speaker 2: uh with accuracy who donates to whom uh in these
00:22:07
Speaker 2: 34 years in some cases, it might be possible on
00:22:12
Speaker 2: a generic level to come to no say at window
00:22:14
Speaker 2: period of 15 days. If
00:22:16
Speaker 2: a large percentage of bond bonds was bought only by
00:22:20
Speaker 2: one entity and a fairly large percentage went to only
00:22:23
Speaker 2: one political party, then one could fairly conclude that it
00:22:27
Speaker 2: was from this entity to that party. But I think
00:22:31
Speaker 2: that would not be conclusive. And I think there um
00:22:35
Speaker 2: the SB I lawyer has played Mr Salve has played
00:22:40
Speaker 2: in court. We are unwillingly or unknowingly has fallen for
00:22:44
Speaker 2: the trick by uh excluding the opportunity for us as
00:22:50
Speaker 2: citizens to know who actually donated. Because if you remember
00:22:54
Speaker 2: the original Supreme Court order said citizens have a right
00:22:57
Speaker 2: to know which corporate is giving money to which party.
00:23:03
Speaker 2: Um
00:23:05
Speaker 2: le let's presume innocence and uh gullibility on behalf of
00:23:11
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. But I think it missed the bus
00:23:14
Speaker 2: by half uh by denying citizens that right in its
00:23:18
Speaker 2: yesterday's order.
00:23:19
Speaker 1: All right. So I think uh with that, we can
00:23:21
Speaker 1: wind up today's show. So moving forward, uh how do
00:23:24
Speaker 1: you see the entire uh electoral Bond scheme and the
00:23:27
Speaker 1: Supreme Court uh you know, drama playing out?
00:23:31
Speaker 1: Sure. I
00:23:31
Speaker 2: think uh while the Electoral Bonds era is over. Um
00:23:38
Speaker 2: I think there's other information that we reporters collected with
00:23:41
Speaker 2: stories that we put out, which is as worrisome. Um
00:23:45
Speaker 2: reporters collective showed that in the last few weeks, the
00:23:51
Speaker 2: government brought about changes to the Income Tax Act which
00:23:55
Speaker 2: allows and requires every donor
00:23:58
Speaker 2: uh to share information on who they have given donations to,
00:24:04
Speaker 2: to the Income Tax Department. Uh particularly if they are
00:24:08
Speaker 2: seeking uh tax exemption as the election, electoral donations provide.
00:24:14
Speaker 2: Now to me and to us that is even more
00:24:18
Speaker 2: worrisome because
00:24:20
Speaker 2: here is now a legalized form where the political party
00:24:23
Speaker 2: in power and its armed income tax department will get
00:24:27
Speaker 2: information uh by force from every entity, individual company, et
00:24:33
Speaker 2: cetera on uh who people are donating to.
00:24:38
Speaker 2: And then it can be used discreetly secretly to go
00:24:42
Speaker 2: after whoever the political uh party in power wants. And
00:24:47
Speaker 2: uh there's complete discretion in who the income tax department
00:24:51
Speaker 2: will pursue and who it will not.
00:24:53
Speaker 2: Uh The donors are required to give transaction level details
00:24:58
Speaker 2: uh every year in its annual return, which is the
00:25:01
Speaker 2: first time it's happening and this is information that the
00:25:04
Speaker 2: election commission itself is not allowed to collect. Uh So
00:25:09
Speaker 2: to me, while the Electoral Bonds era is over, I
00:25:12
Speaker 2: think the government has put in place a surveillance mechanism
00:25:16
Speaker 2: over all donors
00:25:18
Speaker 2: um very quietly discreetly without citizens knowing. And that is
00:25:22
Speaker 2: even more worrisome than uh the electoral bonds
00:25:25
Speaker 1: itself. Thanks a lot, Nathan for joining us. It's a
00:25:28
Speaker 1: wrap of today's episode of on Manorama News Break. Uh
00:25:31
Speaker 1: An Explainer podcast produced by Harita Benjamin with technical production
00:25:35
Speaker 1: by Idea Brew Studios. It comes out every week and
00:25:38
Speaker 1: is available on all podcast platforms. Do follow on manorama.com
00:25:42
Speaker 1: for more updates.