In a significant step towards enhancing the transparency of political funding, the Election Commission of India has made public the data related to electoral bonds, as provided by the State Bank of India. This disclosure, made on Thursday, comes just before the Supreme Court’s mandated deadline. The released data encompasses bond purchases ranging from ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore, beginning from April 12, 2019, and includes transactions made by both corporations and individuals.
On the Election Commission’s website, two separate listings are presented. One details the corporations that have acquired electoral bonds, including the amounts and dates of purchase. The second list reveals the names of political parties that have redeemed the bonds, alongside the amounts and redemption dates. However, it remains impossible to match the donors with the recipients directly from this information.
Leading the contributions through electoral bonds is Future Gaming and Hotel Services PR, with a massive investment of ₹1,368 crore. Following closely is Megha Engineering And Infrastructures Limited, with purchases totaling ₹966 crore. Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited ranks third with ₹410 crore, Vedanta Limited is fourth with ₹400 crore, and Haldia Energy Limited places fifth with ₹377 crore.
In the sixth position, Bharti Group has contributed ₹247 crore, Essel Mining And Inds Ltd follows with ₹224 crore, and rounding out the top ten are Western UP Power Transmission Company Limited at ₹220 crore, Keventer Foodpark Infra Ltd at ₹195 crore, and Madanlal Ltd at ₹185 crore.
The political entities that have benefited from electoral bond encashments include prominent names such as the BJP, Congress, Trinamool Congress, AAP, Samajwadi Party, AIADMK, BRS, Shiv Sena, TDP, YSR Congress, DMK, JDS, NCP, JDU, and RJD.
In its statement, the Election Commission announced the release of this data, emphasizing its stance on advocating for disclosure and transparency. This commitment has been consistent and evident throughout the proceedings of the Supreme Court, as noted in its order.
Prashant Bhushan, an advocate representing the Association of Democratic Reforms in the electoral bonds case, highlighted the absence of serial numbers in the disclosed data. He argued that such details are crucial for identifying the donors, the amounts donated, and the beneficiaries of these funds. Bhushan also contended that the Supreme Court’s order implicitly assumes contributions should not be anonymous.
