Electoral bonds judgment 'fell short', needed an SIT: Former SC judge Lokur

The judgment on electoral bonds "fell short", former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Madan Lokur said on Thursday, adding that (special investigation team) should have been formed to look into it.

Justice Lokur was speaking during a discussion on the new book India Inked by journalist Poonam Agarwal. The book explores how elections are conducted in India, and also touches upon the topic of electoral bonds, a political funding scheme introduced in 2018, which was struck down by the Supreme Court on 15 February 2024.

Referring to the order that struck down the for being unconstitutional, Lokur said the apex court did not go "far enough".

"The judgment fell short of what it should have done. They declared it unconstitutional... I think the SC did not go far enough. There are two things, one is transparency, just reveal everything, second is follow-up by state. You have persons who have given a thousand crore, Rs 200-300 crore. Where did they get this money from? This is supposed to be white money," he said.

"Perhaps an SIT should have been set up to find what is going on," the former Supreme Court judge said.

Referring to the electoral bonds scheme, Jagdeep Chhokar, founder of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the key petitioners in the case against the scheme in the Supreme Court, described it as a "successful operation in which the patient died".

He said the scheme claimed to bring transparency in electoral funding, but kept the identity of donors anonymous.

Congress leader Pawan Khera said the scheme was "unfair" to the Opposition, as identities of donors were hidden from them, but the government had access to them. He also said his the Bill in Parliament.

Chhokar, however, contended that the Congress could have also chosen not to accept donations and challenge the law, and cited the example of the CPI(M), which was one of the petitioners in the case in the Supreme Court.

He also said the Congress' opposition to the Bill in Parliament was not effective. "There was no passion. It was opposition for the sake of opposition," he said.

Chhokar said the Congress had the option to take donations through other methods like cheques. "The CPI(M) went to court, what prevented the Congress from going to court?" he asked.

Activist Anjali Bharadwaj said she expected a "strong Opposition" to stand up to the government against the scheme, while Chhokar said all parties should be held to a certain standard. Bharadwaj also called for more transparency in the electoral process, and said, "In democracy, election is not held for parties, it is held for citizens. It's for them to elect their representatives," she said.

Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa said the Election Commission tries to operate amid boundaries prescribed by law. "The paradox is while the EC likes to work in boundaries, people's expectations are very very high. No doubt, a referee has to play its part according to rules," he said, adding that those playing want to win, and don't necessarily care about the rules.

Chhokar also said parties don't treat elections as a process for people to chose their representatives. "They want to win power," he said.