Tag: Transparency

Supreme Court Directs Full Disclosure on Electoral Bonds: SBI Ordered to Reveal All Details Including Alphanumeric Codes

Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Nation, Nation India 0

The Supreme Court instructed the State Bank of India (SBI) on Monday to reveal all information regarding electoral bonds purchased or redeemed after its April 12, 2019 interim order. The court, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, emphasized the necessity for comprehensive disclosure, including the disclosure of unique alphanumeric codes, to facilitate matching donors with recipients. The Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, directed SBI to submit an affidavit on compliance by March 21.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the bank’s selective disclosure practices, insisting that all pertinent details must be revealed without exception. It emphasized that disclosure encompasses the alphanumeric and serial numbers of bonds purchased and redeemed. However, the request to disclose codes of bonds transacted before the April 12, 2019 interim order was declined.

The Bench further instructed the SBI Chairman and Managing Director to affirm, by March 21, that the bank has disclosed all pertinent electoral bond details and has withheld no information. It referred to previous orders mandating the submission of purchase details, including dates, purchaser names, and bond denominations, alongside details of bonds encashed by political parties.

In light of the court’s decision to strike down the electoral bond scheme on February 15, 2024, it stressed the significance of complete disclosure by SBI, covering both purchases and contributions received by political parties.

The court also directed the Election Commission to promptly upload the information provided by SBI, reiterating the bank’s obligation to disclose all details without delay or selectivity.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed disappointment with SBI’s approach, emphasizing that the court’s directive encompassed the disclosure of all details, including bond numbers. He criticized the bank’s selective disclosure, urging it to comply fully with the court’s orders without waiting for further directives.

The Chief Justice questioned SBI’s reluctance to disclose certain details, asserting that the court’s orders were clear and inclusive. He emphasized that the bank’s compliance should be unequivocal, guided solely by its duty to adhere to the court’s directives.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing SBI, assured the court of the bank’s willingness to provide all required information. He sought to clarify the bank’s interpretation of previous court orders and judgments, emphasizing the distinction between political parties’ obligations and the bank’s responsibilities.

Salve explained that the interim order of April 2019 pertained to political parties’ disclosure obligations, not the bank’s obligation to reveal bond numbers. He emphasized the bank’s commitment to transparency while acknowledging the perception that SBI was withholding information.

Responding to concerns raised by the court, Salve affirmed the bank’s readiness to disclose all information, including bond numbers, to dispel any doubts regarding its transparency and compliance.

The court reiterated its expectation of full disclosure from SBI, emphasizing the need for clarity and finality in the matter. It urged the bank to take proactive steps to address any perceptions of non-compliance and ensure complete transparency.

Despite arguments from Advocate Prashant Bhushan to extend the disclosure timeline, the court upheld the April 12, 2019 interim order as the cutoff date for disclosure. It emphasized the need to strike a balance and maintain consistency in its decisions.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its directive for SBI to disclose all details pertaining to electoral bonds purchased or redeemed after April 12, 2019, underscoring the importance of transparency and compliance with its orders.

Indian Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Electoral Bonds, Paving the Way for Transparency in Political Funding

Staff ReporterIndia 0

Political analysts in India have consistently raised concerns about the role of political finance in fostering corruption within the largest democracy globally.

The essence of this concern is vividly displayed during general elections, where the lack of transparency in political funding and the obscure movement of funds have often favored the ruling party, also leading to a significant escalation in election expenses. The 2019 general elections in India, for instance, marked the most expensive electoral event globally, tallying a staggering $8.6 billion in costs—an amount nearly twice the expenditure of the 2014 elections, as indicated by research from the Centre for Media Studies based in Delhi.

However, a remarkable and unexpected legal verdict from India’s Supreme Court might herald a shift in this landscape. On February 15th, in a historic decision, the apex court of India invalidated the electoral bond system, which had been in place for seven years, aiming to inject a basic level of transparency into campaign financing.

Introduced in 2017 by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), electoral bonds permitted individuals and corporations to make unrestricted and anonymous donations to political parties. Under this framework, contributors could acquire interest-free, tax-exempt bonds from the state-owned State Bank of India (SBI) for donation to a political entity of their choice, which could then convert these bonds into cash. Former Finance Minister of the BJP, Arun Jaitley, contended that this mechanism would enhance transparency in political funding by facilitating the flow of clean money while safeguarding the anonymity of the donors.

However, critics argue that over the years, the system has predominantly obstructed the public’s right to transparency regarding the sources of political funding. Moreover, it has disproportionately benefited the BJP, with reports indicating that by November of the previous year, approximately 90% of corporate donations from bonds, amounting to nearly $2 billion, went to the ruling party, according to findings from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a nonprofit organization advocating for electoral reforms and one of the petitioners in the case.

In its recent ruling, the court declared electoral bonds unconstitutional and directed the SBI to immediately cease issuing them. Additionally, the court instructed the bank to furnish details of all bond transactions since April 2019 to the Election Commission, including the value, date of purchase, and the purchaser’s identity, within a week.

According to Trilochan Sastry, the chairman of ADR, the court’s decision signifies a potential transformation ahead of the next election cycle, empowering voters to ascertain the sources of political party funding and enabling civil society organizations to scrutinize potential quid pro quo arrangements between companies and political entities, thus averting the risks associated with crony capitalism.

The petitioners argued that electoral bonds have fostered a culture of secrecy, posing a threat to the democratic process. Sastry emphasized the fundamental right of voters to be informed about the financial backing received by political parties.

While the government justified the anonymity of donors as a means to shield them from potential retribution, critics contend that since the state-owned bank maintains records of both donors and recipients, the ruling party could exploit this information to its advantage. ADR’s data revealed that to date, electoral bonds worth 160 billion rupees ($1.9 billion) have been issued, with the BJP accounting for a significant majority of 57%, compared to just 10% for the primary opposition, the Congress party.

The Supreme Court, in a comprehensive 232-page judgment, sided with the petitioners’ arguments. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asserted that India’s right to information extends beyond state affairs to encompass information crucial for participatory democracy. He stressed the indispensability of transparency in political party funding for informed electoral decision-making, urging the government to embrace openness rather than cloaking matters in secrecy.

The judges further remarked that corporate donors seldom contribute to political parties out of altruistic motives, highlighting the imperative for accountability in the electoral process. They cautioned against allowing unlimited corporate contributions, which could undermine the accountability of elected representatives to their constituents.

The BJP’s spokesperson, Gopal Krishna Agarwal, affirmed the party’s commitment to ongoing reforms in electoral funding, pledging compliance with the court’s ruling. The Congress Party, India’s principal opposition, welcomed the decision, expressing hope for a departure from such practices in the future.

Election monitoring bodies, including ADR, anticipate that the court’s verdict will impose stringent constraints on corporate funding. Sastry emphasized the necessity of adopting transparency norms similar to those in other democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom, where regulations limit corporate contributions to curb undue influence on elections and policymaking.

However, skeptics caution that while the abolition of electoral bonds may mitigate some issues, the broader political finance system, both before the introduction of electoral bonds and now following their annulment, remains shrouded in opacity. Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described a system where corporations, hesitant to openly contribute funds for fear of reprisal, channel donations clandestinely, perpetuating a culture where cash remains paramount and leaving no digital trail.

 

Experts Call for Congressional Hearing on State Department’s Exclusion of Nigeria and India from Religious Freedom Violations List

Staff ReporterEditorial/Opinion 0

A coalition of international religious freedom experts is urging Secretary of State Antony Blinken to testify before a congressional hearing regarding the exclusion of Nigeria and India from a list of nations with severe violations of religious freedom. The group, comprising more than 40 religious freedom experts and organizations, sent a letter on Wednesday, expressing concern over the omission of these countries despite alarming instances of religious violence and persecution.

The letter, initially obtained by The Daily Signal, emphasizes the urgent need for accountability and transparency in the decision-making process. The experts cited significant data, stating that since 2009, over 50,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, with 18,000 churches and 2,500 Christian schools attacked. In the case of India, they reported that between May of the previous year and the present, 200 to 400 churches and 3,500 Christian homes have been targeted.

In the letter, the religious freedom advocates declared their support for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and its call for a congressional hearing into the State Department’s exclusion of Nigeria and India from the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list.

“Nigeria and India have been rocked by alarming instances of religious violence and persecution,” the letter states. “Pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, both countries meet the statutory definition of ‘engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom’ to be designated as CPC. They should be designated as such.”

The designation of a “Country of Particular Concern” is made by the secretary of state if a nation is found to be involved in severe violations of religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. Under the administration of former President Donald Trump, Nigeria was designated as a CPC, but the Biden administration subsequently removed that designation, and the reasons for this decision remain unclear.

The experts stress the importance of the United States taking an active role in addressing these issues and ensuring that the principles of religious freedom are upheld globally. They call for hearings by both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to thoroughly examine the rationale behind excluding Nigeria and India from the CPC list.

“Accountability and transparency are essential to understanding the State Department’s rationale for declining to designate Nigeria and India as CPCs,” the letter continues. “We urge the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to convene hearings to thoroughly examine the reasons behind the exclusion of Nigeria and India from the CPC list. Secretary of State Antony Blinken must answer to Congress and the American people.”

Prominent signatories of the letter include McKenna Wendt from the International Christian Concern, former Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia and Dan Burton of Indiana, Nadine Maenza, President of the International Religious Freedom Secretariat, Lela Gilbert from the Family Research Council, and William Murray, Chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, among others.

Despite the request for comment, the State Department has not responded to inquiries from The Daily Signal at this time. The urgency and gravity of the situation, as highlighted by the religious freedom experts, underscore the need for a thorough examination of the decision-making process and a clear understanding of why Nigeria and India were excluded from the CPC list.

-+=