Examining Gandhi and Santhanam Committee’s Vision in the Age of Electoral Bonds
By: Dr. Muzammil Ahad Dar
The Supreme Court scrutinizes the issue of electoral bonds, it is imperative for India to revisit Mahatma Gandhi’s concerns expressed on September 17, 1931. Gandhi foresaw that political parties might excessively spend money on elections, deeming it “atrocious” for a candidate to spend Rs 60,000-1,00,000 in a country as economically challenged as India. These foresights are noteworthy in light of the insights indicating that several political parties have received crores from the Electoral Bond Scheme introduced by the Modi government in 2017. Nearly a century later, Gandhi’s concerns resonate as India witnesses enormous sums of money collected by the political parties for “managing elections.”
It’s also essential to revisit the Santhanam Committee’s report, initiated by Shastri in 1962, to address the issue of corruption in India. This committee was the first of its kind in independent India, tasked with examining corruption and proposing remedies. Its recommendation that political parties maintain transparent accounts of their finances and disclose these details annually holds significant relevance as the Supreme Court deliberates on the Electoral Bond scheme.
The Attorney General of India’s assertion that citizens don’t have the fundamental right to know the source and volume of funds received by political Party’s contrasts sharply with the Santhanam Committee’s call for legislation mandating such disclosure. The committee’s stance was clear: there should be a law obliging political parties to maintain transparent financial records.
While the Santhanam Committee advocated transparency in the 1960s, the electoral bond system is being defended through legal means at the cost of denying the public’s right to information about funds used by political parties in pursuit of power.
Examining the Santhanam Committee report in depth reveals its foresight into the root causes of corruption. It highlighted that public belief in political corruption was fuelled by the way funds were collected by political parties, particularly during elections. While acknowledging the necessity of substantial funds for political operations, it unequivocally asserted that these funds should come openly from party supporters or sympathizers.
The Santhanam Committee’s emphasis on the publication of detailed financial accounts and the transparent transfer of funds is a critical point for lawyers arguing in favor of a transparent process for political party funding before the Supreme Court.
Notably, the committee recommended the prohibition of corporate funding for political parties, asserting that companies should not be allowed to participate in politics through donations. It even suggested that a total ban on donations by incorporated bodies to political parties would be the ideal solution. Instead, the committee proposed public funding of political parties, believing that this approach would eliminate corruption related to election expenses.
These profound observations gain significance when considering the massive funds received by various political party’s through electoral bonds and the potential increase in corruption due to the Electoral Bond funding. As the Supreme Court deliberates on the legality and constitutionality of electoral bonds, it should take into account the insightful recommendations of the Santhanam Committee.
The writer is Assistant Professor, University of Ladakh
