Electoral bonds aftermath: Voter rights to candidate info under RPA 1951, post-2023 SC strike-down effects on political funding transparency.
Written by Shalini Parashar
Table of Contents
- Electoral Bonds Scheme: Design and Flaws
- Supreme Court Judgment: Key Holdings
- RPA 1951: Donor vs. Candidate Disclosure
- Post-2023 Aftermath: Transparency Gains and Shifts
- 2026 Implications: Ongoing Challenges
- Voter Action Steps and Future Outlook
The Supreme Court’s 2024 strike-down of the Electoral Bonds Scheme marked a pivotal shift toward transparency in Indian political funding, restoring voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) while exposing quid pro quo risks. Post-disclosure data revealed stark asymmetries, with BJP receiving over 50% of ₹16,000+ crore in bonds, fueling calls for RPA reforms amid rising trust-based donations. This article dissects the judgment, RPA provisions, aftermath effects, and 2026 implications for democratic accountability.
Electoral Bonds Scheme: Design and Flaws
Introduced via Finance Act 2017 amendments, the scheme allowed anonymous bearer bonds bought from State Bank of India for donations to eligible parties, exempting disclosure under RPA 1951 Section 29C, Companies Act Section 182, and IT Act Section 13A. Intended to curb black money, it instead enabled unlimited corporate funding—56% of political funds by 2024—without linking donations to elections, raising cronyism concerns.
Key flaws included donor anonymity violating voter information rights, no spending caps fostering influence peddling, and RBI warnings on money laundering risks. From 2018-2024, nearly 20,000 bonds worth ₹16,518 crore were issued, with BJP encashing ₹8,252 crore (50%), Congress ₹1,952 crore (12%), highlighting ruling party dominance.
Supreme Court Judgment: Key Holdings
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024 INSC 113), a unanimous Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud struck the scheme unconstitutional on February 15, 2024. It violated Article 19(1)(a) by denying voters information on funding sources essential for informed choices, failing proportionality tests against free/fair elections under Article 14.
Amendments were “manifestly arbitrary”: RPA Section 29C changes hid >₹20,000 donors; Companies Act removed 7.5% profit caps; IT Act exempted records. SBI was ordered to disclose all data to ECI by March 6, 2024 (published March 13), with refunds for unencashed bonds—revealing post-issue purchases by probed firms.
RPA 1951: Donor vs. Candidate Disclosure
RPA 1951 mandates transparency via Section 29C: parties must report contributions >₹20,000/- annually to ECI, including donor names/addresses for public access. Bonds exempted this, but post-strike-down, full disclosure resumed, restoring voter access to funding trails.
Voter rights to candidate info stem from Sections 33, 39(2), 41B—affidavit disclosures of assets, liabilities, education, and criminal cases—but lack funding links. Article 19(1)(a) jurisprudence (Union of India v. ADR, 2002) expanded this to political funding, as undisclosed sources impair assessing candidate-party nexus. Post-2023, voters can now cross-reference ECI donor data with candidate affidavits for influence mapping.
Post-2023 Aftermath: Transparency Gains and Shifts
Data release exposed patterns: 1,400+ firms donated post-agency raids (e.g., loss-makers like Future Gaming), suggesting quid pro quo, with BJP as top recipient. Total bonds: ₹16,518 crore (2019-2024); BJP 50%, Trinamool 13%, BRS 9%.
No new anonymous schemes emerged; instead, electoral trusts surged—₹3,811 crore in 2024-25 (vs. ₹1,218 crore prior), requiring donor/recipient disclosure. BJP got ₹3,112 crore (82%), Congress ₹299 crore—transparency intact but asymmetry persists, with trusts like Prudent Electoral Trust channeling corporates.
ECI reports show overall funding up, but scrutinized: 2024-25 donations tripled via named channels, curbing black money claims validated partially.
2026 Implications: Ongoing Challenges
By February 2026, post-bond era stabilizes with ECI’s annual disclosures enabling voter scrutiny, but gaps remain—no real-time reporting, no spending audits, foreign funding via trusts unaddressed. RPA lacks candidate-specific donor links, limiting voter assessment of favors (e.g., policy contracts post-donation).
Reforms needed: Caps on corporate donations (restore 5-7.5%), real-time ECI portal, AI-driven nexus analysis. Amid 2024 elections, data influenced narratives, boosting ADR lawsuits; 2026 state polls may test trust efficacy. Enhanced RPA could mandate funding affidavits in candidate forms, fully empowering voters.
Voter Action Steps and Future Outlook
Voters can now use ECI/ADR portals to trace donors to parties/candidates, filing RTI for gaps or petitions under Article 226. For SEO-optimized advocacy: “Check your candidate’s funders post-electoral bonds.”
While transparency advanced, full equity demands legislative fixes—watch Budget 2026 for RPA tweaks. The verdict democratized info but underscores money-politics nexus vigilance.
