SHILLONG: National People’s Party (NPP) national president and Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma has said that the introduction of electoral bonds was a positive step by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Centre towards bringing more transparency into the funding of political parties.
“The introduction of electoral bonds aimed to bring transparency to electoral funding. I believe that this was a positive step. It ensured anonymity, preventing any particular company’s name from being associated with a specific party,” he said, while talking to a news agency on the sidelines of a poll rally at Law College field in South Tura on Tuesday.
Stressing the “transparency quotient,” he added that the electoral bonds bought by companies reflect in their respective balance sheets, hence “there was transparency.”
“It should have continued, but following the Supreme Court’s directive and many other factors, it has been struck down. Even though the Supreme Court has now disclosed everyone’s names, I still stand by the belief that this was a step in the right direction,” he said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had earlier defended electoral bonds, asserting that they were instrumental in eliminating cash and corruption from poll funding.
In an interview with the same news agency on April 15, the Prime Minister had expressed confidence that people would appreciate the move upon honest reflection, highlighting its role in curbing unaccounted funds in elections.
Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertions, the opposition has vehemently criticised electoral bonds, labelling them as “the world’s largest extortion scheme”.
In a joint press conference held on Tuesday, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, alongside Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, raised serious doubts about the transparency of electoral bonds, questioning the rationale behind their implementation and subsequent scrapping by the Supreme Court.
In February, the Supreme Court deemed electoral bonds as “unconstitutional” and banned all political funding facilitated through these anonymous donation instruments.
The court’s ruling was based on the argument that electoral bonds, by safeguarding the identity of donors and their affiliations with specific political parties, infringed upon citizens’ right to information.
