NEW DELHI: Shortly after Supreme Court struck down
electoral bonds
as "unconstitutional", BJP on Thursday defended the scheme saying it was started with laudable objective of bringing in
transparency
in
poll funding
. The party, however, said it respects SC verdict.
"The electoral bonds scheme was brought in for transparency in electoral funding and reduce inflow of cash during elections.
Even donors want secrecy... This is not the only effort PM Modi has made to bring more transparency in the election process," senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad at a press conference. Prasad, however, said that party will give a detailed response after a comprehensive study of judgment which runs into hundreds of pages.
Taking a swipe at opposition which had alleged that the bonds could work as bribes to BJP from corporate groups, he said parties whose "DNA is based on corruption and bribery" should not level such charges.
Amid claims that electoral bonds denied opposition parties a level-playing field in elections, former Union minister said it is for people to decide who are in the field and who are out of it. People have thrown some parties out of the field and they could not now win even one seat in regions which used to be their strongholds, Prasad said.
BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli said, "Those political parties who are trying to politicise it are doing it primarily on the grounds that they have no answer or alternative to Modiji's leadership."
He said govt had brought scheme to address the issue of use of black money in elections. Although party has still not made it clear if it will approach court for a review, a senior BJP functionary said judgment is violative of the rights of donors, who were operating based on a sovereign legal guarantee.
"What about legal rights of the donors?" he questioned. On SC asking to disclose all names retrospectively, he said, "Is it not only violative of rights of donors, but also citizens of India. Does a legal regime, created by Parliament, have no sanctity?" He said SC could have asked to disclose names prospectively. That would have been fine as new donors are aware of legal consequences.
English (US) ·