Moa Jamir
Funding dynamics in Nagaland amid Electoral Bonds
In the lead-up to general elections to the 18th Lok Sabha, the political landscape in India has been shaken by a significant ruling from the Supreme Court of India declaring the Electoral Bonds scheme unconstitutional. The landmark judgment of February 15 by a five-judge constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, among others, deemed the Union government’s scheme and related amendments to several acts as violations of voters' right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted concerns about the potential for 'quid pro quo' (something for something) arrangements via these schemes, deeming them "unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary."
Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to provide details of Electoral Bonds purchased since its interim order on ‘April 12, 2019 till date’ to Election Commission of India (ECI) by March 6. The ECI was then instructed to publish the information within one week of receipt or by March 13, 2024.
Despite requests from the SBI for an extension until June 30 to disclose these details, the Court rejected the application and ordered submission by March 12. The ECI subsequently published the information shared by the SBI on March 14. However, the initial submission was criticised for being selective. Following the Apex Court's rebuke, the SBI filed a detailed compliance affidavit on March 21, stating that it had provided all details of the electoral bonds in its possession to the ECI.
Unsurprisingly, the political party heading the ruling alliance at the Union was found to have received the majority of funds under the Electoral Bonds scheme. Furthermore, parties in power in various states appeared to have an advantage, suggesting the possibility of a 'quid pro quo' arrangement.
Interestingly, neither of the State political parties in Nagaland – the Naga People’s Front (NPF) and the Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP) – were recipients of the electoral bonds scheme. This perhaps indicates a lack of interest or opportunities by/for contributors or alternative means of funding.
Moreover, official reports suggest that politics in Nagaland, as well as the respective political parties, have been relatively clean, with minimal political contributions. For instance, both the NPF and NDPP reported negligible contributions exceeding twenty thousand rupees in recent financial years in its annual audit reports to the ECI.
For instance, the financial reports submitted by both the NPF and NDPP indicated that the "contributions received, exceeding twenty thousand rupees" in the few financial years (FY) up to 2022-23 are minimal at best, and in most years, ‘nil.’
Between FY 2018-19 and FY 2022-23, the NDPP reported receiving contributions exceeding Rs 20,000 from a single individual or entity only twice (in 2018-19 and 2022-23), according to their own declarations. As for the NPF, over the past decade, contributions exceeding Rs 20,000 were only received in FY 2014-15.
Contrary to popular belief, the cost of contesting elections in Nagaland appears to be relatively low. An analysis of election expenses conducted by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in December 2023 revealed that the average expenditure by elected legislators in the 2023 Nagaland Assembly elections was Rs 8.87 lakh, significantly below the prescribed limit of Rs 28 lakh expenditure. Among the 60 MLAs analysed, 50 (83%) declared election expenses that were less than 50% of the expenditure limit and the MLA with the highest expenditure reported spending Rs 22.58 lakh.
Just five years prior, in 2018, an informal survey estimated the average election expenses per candidate at Rs 5.41 crore. Notably, the 'Post Election Watch Report' for the 2023 election has not yet been published, or may not be published at all. However, it is anticipated that expenses would have had risen due to inflation and other factors.
As such, official disclosures suggest a pristine political atmosphere in Nagaland. However, the purportedly low election costs and minimal reported funding highlight the need for robust scrutiny in a post-Electoral Bonds era. Transparency is key to maintaining public trust in the democratic process.
For any comment, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
