The Quint: National: Friday,
04 December 2020.
The State Bank of India (SBI) is the only bank authorised to sell and redeem electoral bonds. Since thousands of crores pass through SBI's hands to political parties, the scheme must be flawless. But RTI replies reveal that SBI is unable to conduct proper eligibility checks on political parties who receive donations via electoral bonds.
Via RTI The Quint had earlier revealed that the RBI, EC, and the Union Law Ministry had raised strong objections to the Electoral Bonds scheme before its launch - that it could be a vehicle for money laundering and that hiding donors’ identities would allow black money into the scheme.
The scheme was introduced to facilitate white money in political funding and to keep the identity of donors anonymous. The Quint, in a series of articles, had debunked both these claims of the government.
In April 2019, based on a petition filed against the electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court ordered, “all political parties who have received donations through electoral bonds till date, to submit (an affidavit) to the EC in a sealed cover”. The affidavits were expected to include detailed particulars of the donors as well.
By May 2019, 105 political parties had submitted their affidavits to EC in sealed covers. In February 2020, the EC informed the Supreme Court that of the 105 political parties in the list, 4 were listed as having submitted “unidentified address of political parties/addressee”. They either failed to mention the name or address of the political party, or both.
The State Bank of India (SBI) is the only bank authorised to sell and redeem electoral bonds. Since thousands of crores pass through SBI's hands to political parties, the scheme must be flawless. But RTI replies reveal that SBI is unable to conduct proper eligibility checks on political parties who receive donations via electoral bonds.
Via RTI The Quint had earlier revealed that the RBI, EC, and the Union Law Ministry had raised strong objections to the Electoral Bonds scheme before its launch - that it could be a vehicle for money laundering and that hiding donors’ identities would allow black money into the scheme.
The scheme was introduced to facilitate white money in political funding and to keep the identity of donors anonymous. The Quint, in a series of articles, had debunked both these claims of the government.
In April 2019, based on a petition filed against the electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court ordered, “all political parties who have received donations through electoral bonds till date, to submit (an affidavit) to the EC in a sealed cover”. The affidavits were expected to include detailed particulars of the donors as well.
By May 2019, 105 political parties had submitted their affidavits to EC in sealed covers. In February 2020, the EC informed the Supreme Court that of the 105 political parties in the list, 4 were listed as having submitted “unidentified address of political parties/addressee”. They either failed to mention the name or address of the political party, or both.