After the Supreme Court struck down electoral bonds, corporate funding to political parties has surged through electoral trusts. Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan alleges these donations are thinly disguised bribes exchanged for government favours.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India’s decision to strike down the electoral bonds scheme has dramatically reshaped the landscape of political funding in India. Recent data submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI) shows that funding to political parties through electoral trusts has nearly tripled, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and corporate influence in politics.
Senior lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan has criticized this trend, stating that corporate donations routed through electoral trusts are “thinly disguised bribes for favours from governments run by those parties.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Review Sought on Dismissal of Pleas Against Electoral Bonds Scheme
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court scrapped the electoral bonds scheme, declaring it unconstitutional for violating citizens’ right to information. The scheme allowed anonymous political donations, primarily benefiting ruling parties.
With electoral bonds gone, electoral trusts have emerged as the dominant alternative channel for corporate political funding.
Electoral Trust Funding Triples in 2024–25
According to the contribution reports submitted to the Election Commission:
- ₹3,811 crore was donated by electoral trusts to political parties in 2024–25
- This represents a threefold increase compared to previous years
- The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received over 82% of the total funding
- The Congress received less than 8%, while other parties shared the remainder
Political funding via trusts is highly concentrated, overwhelmingly favouring the ruling party at the Centre.
What Are Electoral Trusts?
Electoral trusts are non-profit entities set up to receive donations from companies and individuals and distribute them to political parties.
Claimed Advantages:
- Donations are declared
- Contributions are routed through banking channels
- Reports are submitted to the Election Commission
The Core Problem:
While electoral trusts are more transparent than electoral bonds, they do not disclose the specific company-to-party linkage in real time, allowing donors to indirectly influence governments without public scrutiny.
Reacting to the surge in funding, Prashant Bhushan stated:
“There is no doubt that companies funding political parties through electoral trusts are paying thinly disguised bribes for favours from governments run by those parties. Each donation is earmarked for parties whose governments gave them favours.”
This allegation underscores a long-standing concern in Indian democracy:
policy decisions, contracts, and regulatory relaxations may be influenced by corporate donations.
Critics argue that:
- Companies donate primarily to parties in power
- Donations often follow government approvals, contracts, or regulatory benefits
- Electoral trusts act as intermediaries, masking quid pro quo arrangements
The fact that the ruling party receives the overwhelming majority of trust funding strengthens perceptions of pay-to-play politics.
ALSO READ: Electoral Bonds Case | Chronology of Events
While electoral trusts are legally compliant, transparency advocates argue they fall short because:
- The public cannot easily link a specific company’s donation to a specific political decision
- Voters remain unaware of potential conflicts of interest
- Oversight mechanisms are weak and retrospective
In essence, legality does not automatically mean ethical accountability.