Sovereign Guarantee What? The Hazards Of SC Scrapping Donor Anonymity Retrospectively

The Supreme Court has declared electoral bonds to be unconstitutional. A five-judge constitution bench said that electoral bonds violate the right to information guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The apex court has asked State Bank of India (SBI) to submit details of parties that have received contributions from 12 April 2019 till date to the Election Commission of India (ECI). SBI has been mandated to disclose details of each electoral bond. These details are to be published by ECI before 13 March 2024.

This part of the SC's judgement is bound to hurt donors who had monetarily supported the political parties of their choice assuming that their donations would remain anonymous.

Anonymity And Security

Party karyakartas working on ground in India face issues like defamation and in worst cases, attacks on livelihood and dangers to life too. Defamation, mud-slinging and ad-hominem attacks are an issue faced by supporters of political parties as well.

This is a disincentive for numerous people who would have otherwise directly participated in electoral politics.

"Sane people do not participate in politics" is an epithet which has been a consistent part of Indian political space. It has its roots in that fear.

The anonymity of electoral bonds provided such people a chance to participate in politics more directly. They could contribute towards the party most favourable to their ideological inclinations without having to defend their choice in public.

It was a legal guarantee provided by electoral bonds, and buttressed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

But Supreme Court’s order has upturned that. What they thought of as sovereign guarantee is no longer a ‘guarantee’ now. Anonymity has been interpreted as only a tool of reciprocal exchange between donors and political parties.

As this post on X argues, had the SC ordered that all donations from now onwards, ie, prospectively, would not be anonymous, it would not be damaging for existing donors. It is the retrospective nature of the SC's order which has made the donors potentially vulnerable to harassment.