In a world where political funding and transparency are critical issues, India has introduced a unique concept – electoral bonds. These financial instruments are designed to facilitate donations to political parties, but what makes them truly exceptional is the cloak of anonymity they provide. A recent conversation between a hypothetical Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a prominent lawyer, Kapil Sibal, shed light on the intriguing nature of these bonds and their ability to protect the identity of donors.
Suppose a person, referred to as A, purchases electoral bonds worth ₹100 crores, intending to support a political party. A, in this scenario, is considered the purchaser of the bonds. However, the intriguing aspect is that the true identity behind A remains shrouded in mystery. The bonds are then physically handed over to another entity, B, who subsequently transfers them to the intended political party, which we’ll call C.
What sets electoral bonds apart is their ability to conceal the true donor. In the eyes of the law, the individual who satisfies the condition of being the purchaser is A, but the veil of secrecy is never lifted. No one, not even the most scrutinous eye, knows who lurks behind A, or who is the actual entity donating the funds.
Kapil Sibal, a prominent legal mind, emphasizes the ingenuity of this scheme and points out that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has raised concerns about it repeatedly. The design of electoral bonds, it seems, has the capability to protect those who may have committed a crime or engaged in unethical practices by keeping their identities hidden.
The system of electoral bonds, in theory, was introduced to enhance transparency in political funding. However, the conversation between the hypothetical CJI and Kapil Sibal underscores the clandestine nature of these bonds, raising questions about their effectiveness in achieving this objective.
In a world where transparency and accountability are paramount, the ingenious cloak of anonymity provided by electoral bonds is a topic of concern and debate. As the system stands, it appears that the true identity of political donors can remain safely hidden, leaving the public in the dark about who is truly funding the political landscape.
Disclaimer: This article is a paraphrased version of a hypothetical conversation and does not contain plagiarized content.
