National and regional political parties failed to declare details of financial institutions, banks or agencies whose loans were availed, said the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in an assets and liabilities analysis report for FY 2018-19.

The report titled Analysis of Assets and Liabilities of National & Regional Parties – FY 2018-19 was published on March 18, 2021. According to the data, seven national and 41 regional parties declared assets worth Rs. 5,349.25 crore and Rs. 2023.71 crore respectively during the FY 2018-19.

Among national parties, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) declared the highest assets amounting to Rs. 2,904.18 crore (54.29 percent) followed by the Indian National Congress party (INC) with assets worth Rs. 928.84 crore (17.36 percent). The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) declared assets worth Rs. 738 crore (13.80 percent).

Similarly, the Samajwadi Party (SP) declared the highest assets worth Rs. 572.21 crore (28.28 percent) among regional parties. Next in rank was the Biju Janata Dal party (BJD) with assets worth Rs. 232.27 crore, and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party (AIADMK) declared assets worth Rs. 206.75 crore.

As per ICAI guidelines, details of fixed assets received as donation should be declared. Such as original cost of the asset, additions, deductions, depreciation written off, cost of construction, etc. The same should also be declared of fixed assets purchased by the political parties but not all Political Parties declared this information.

Meanwhile, total liabilities of all parties together amounted to Rs. 213.231 crore. These liabilities fall under two categories: borrowings (from banks, overdraft facilities and sundry creditors) and other liabilities.

According to the report, national parties declared Rs. 123.40 crore (57.87 percent) under other liabilities and Rs 89.831crore (42.13 percent) under borrowings. The INC declared highest total liabilities of Rs. 78.415 crore (58.75 percent) followed by the BJP that declared Rs 37.463 crore (28.06 percent) liabilities.

Regional parties declared total liabilities of Rs. 79.751 crore in FY 2018-19 with Rs. 47.181 crore under borrowings, and Rs. 32.57 cr under other liabilities. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) declared highest total liabilities of Rs. 18.10 crore (22.696 percent) followed by the Janata Dal (Secular) Party (JDS) that declared Rs 18.01 crore (22.583 percent).

As per guidelines, parties should state the “terms of repayment of term loans” on the basis of due date such as a year, 1-5 years or payable after 5 years. Yet again, not all participants declared details of loans given by them in cash or kind.

As for the total Capital/Reserve Fund set aside by national and regional parties, they declared Rs. 5,215.77 cr and Rs. 1,943.976 cr respectively. The BJP declared the highest capital of Rs. 2,866.717 crore followed by the INC with Rs. 850.426 crore and the BSP with Rs. 735.77 crore. The lowest capital was declared by the Communist Party of India (CPI) with Rs. 24.87 crore followed by the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) with Rs. 31.05 crore.

Meanwhile, SP declared the highest capital of Rs. 571.70 crore among regional parties followed by Rs. 223.85 crore by BJD and Rs. 206.708 crore by AIADMK.

To ensure uniformity in the auditing practices of political parties, the ADR recommended regular change in auditors every three years in accordance with the amended Companies Act, 2013.

“Once a firm/person is responsible for auditing accounts of political parties for a long duration, there is a possibility that finances of parties could be made as opaque as possible… This becomes a worrisome factor if the domestic firm is auditing Indian parties’ accounts. By having no provision to change auditors frequently, foreign companies might have a bird’s eye view of the parties’ internal accounting,” said the report.

It recommended accounts should be “audited by a qualified and practicing Chartered Accountant from a panel of such accountants maintained for the purpose by the Comptroller and Auditor General.” This is in contrast with the current practice where parties choose their auditors.

The ADR also suggested annual scrutiny of party documents because their income-expenditure statements are rarely assessed. When the authenticity is not verified, auditors who might be under-reporting the accounts, remain out of purview of punishment. With online submission of IT Returns, parties do not submit details of income, expenditure and assets and liabilities as attachments. Thus, the IT department too does not have enough information on finances.

Further, it talked about the 170th Law Commission report that proposed penalties for political parties defaulting in the maintenance of accounts.

“Supreme Court had stated that when parties default in filing their returns, prima facie they violate provisions of the IT Act. For FY 2018-19, Audit Reports of major Regional Parties such as JKNC, NPP among others are unavailable on the website of the ECI. In case of National Parties, 4 parties namely NCP, BJP, INC and CPI delayed the submission of their audit reports by 5 to 42 days,” said the report.

The entire Analysis of Assets and Liabilities of National & Regional Parties – FY 2018-19 may be read here:

Related:

23 Surat election candidates declare serious criminal charges against themselves: ADR report
The EVM Conundrum: Concerns over EVMs not invalid, must be addressed
Support grows for Migrant Workers’ Right to Vote
15 UP bye-elections candidates charged with serious criminal cases: ADR

The post National political parties declared assets over Rs. 5,000 crore in FY 2018-19: ADR report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking strong objection to the manner and fashion of the recent arrests of students and activists during the COVID 19 Pandemic lockdown in the national capital, eight political parties of India have written a letter to the President, Ramnath Kovind, condemning these arrests as well as the timing of such arrests. The indiscriminate arrests that have been taking place since early March have particularly intensified after the lockdown taking full advantage, it is alleged, of the absence of free movement and protests that could or would have otherwise ensued. Most of those arrested are young Muslim activists, including women student leaders who were active in organising protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 and the NPR-NRC. Student leaders of left parties have also been called in for questioning!

The Hindu reported that this letter has been signed by Sitaram Yechury, CPI (M) general secretary, D. Raja, CPI general secretary, Dipankar Bhattacharya, CPI(ML) general secretary, Debabrata Biswas, AIFB general secretary, Manoj Bhattacharya, RSP general secretary, Sharad Yadav, LJD general secretary, Manoj Jha, RJD MP, and Thol. Thirumavalavan, MP and VCK president.

The letter states that these arrests are ill timed especially in times when the whole world is experiencing fear and uncertainty. It further says that the priority of the government must be to focus on effectively dealing with the COVID19 pandemic and the problems that have spawned from it such as the starving migrant workers trying to get back home.

Instead of following the example of other countries which have released their prisoners, in India a physically disabled prisoner like Dr. GN Saibaba has not been allowed to seek competent medical treatment. The letter also condemns the arrest and continuing detention of former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti.

The letter also calls the charges invoked against M.Phil student Safoora Zafar under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as “manufactured charges”. Additionally, many such students are being called by Special branch and are being intimidated, says the letter.

Further, the letter points out that there is no action against the outsiders who unleashed violence on the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University and instead the victims of the violence are being targeted by the police. “It is also shocking to note that certain communities are being targeted while the perpetrators of communally charged violence, established in various video recordings, including prominent leaders of the ruling party, are moving around scot-free,” says the letter.

The letter also spoke of the arrests made in the case of riots in North-East Delhi towards the end of February, pointing out that only young Muslim men were being arrested and interrogated for the same, creating a sense of insecurity within the Muslim community.

The letter also condemns the continued detention of RJD chief Lalu Prasasd Yadav despite of his ill health and condemned the stringent conditions of his imprisonment.

“The arrests of Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha in the Bhima Koregaon case even while continuing the detention of activists Sudha Bharadwaj and others without any evidence is another shocking example of how civil liberties are being trampled,” the letter says.

This letter condemning arrests of scholars and activists in connection with the anti-CAA protests is not the first of its kind. Front Line Defenders, an organization that works with a specific aim of protecting rights activists, has also condemned there arrests which include Shifa Ur Rehman, President of the alumni association of Jamia Milia Islamia; Kawalpreet Kaur, President of the All India Students Association for Delhi; Khalid Saifi, a HRD and social activist associated with United against Hate and so on. The organization in its statement said, “Anti-terror laws have historically been used against human rights defenders in India, most notably in the Bhima Koregaon cases and most recently to suppress anti-CAA protesters. The continued incarceration of these human rights defenders in the context of COVID-19 puts them at risk, whilst also violating global best practice and directives set by the Indian Supreme Court to decongest prisons during the pandemic.”

It is significant that while left parties and the RJDare signatories to this letter, representatives of other opposition parties like the Congress (INC), Samajwadi Party (SP), Aam Admi Party (AAP) Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Trinamool Congress (TMC) and DMK are conspicuously absent from the communication.

A week ago, around 1,100 respected feminist intellectuals across India such as Annie Raja, Medha Patkar, Farah Naqvi, Aruna Roy, Teesta Setalvad, Aparna Sen, Shabnam Hashmi, among others, also released a statement of condemnation against the targeting of the activists as well as the wider move to spin a false narrative that links the anti-CAA protests with the violence in Delhi. The statement said, “As feminists we decry this systematic crackdown on, and mis-representation of, the peaceful and constitutional anti-CAA-NRC-NPR movement. Led so powerfully by Muslim women across the country, these protests witnessed a new wave of women stepping out in their own neighbourhoods in huge numbers, defying social structures and asserting their rights as citizens of a secular, democratic republic—one of the most historic moments and movements, since independence.”

Related:

Free Safoora: Indians hold car rally in Canada in solidarity with student activist

Front Line defenders criticizes repression of dissent and arrest of student activists

1100 feminists write to PM against targeting of anti-CAA women protesters

The post Eight political parties condemn arrests of students and activists in letter to the President appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reported that the ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spent 44.06 percent of the total election expenses of all parties, i.e. Rs. 1141.72 crore.

On Friday, the NGO, released a report of the funds collected and expenditure incurred of seven national parties and 25 regional parties during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The report analysed party spending on publicity, travel, miscellaneous expenses and amounts paid to their contesting candidates.
 

Funds collected and expenditure incurred

The total funds collected by the 32 political parties stood at Rs. 6,405.59 crore. Of these funds, the national parties collected Rs. 5544.34 crore (86.55%) and the regional parties, Rs. 861.25 crore (13.45%).

Among all the parties, the BJP collected the maximum funds of Rs. 4,507.40 crore (63.34%) and the second highest amount was collected by the Indian National Congress (INC) Rs. 1167.14 crore (18.22%).

Of these, the national and regional parties together spent Rs. 2,591.39 crore, of which Rs. 2,004.99 crore (77.37%) was spent by the national parties alone.

BJP’s expenditure among the national parties stood the highest at Rs. 1141.72 crore, followed by the INC which spent Rs. 626.36 crore.

Publicity

The report said that the parties spent the maximum on Media Advertisement (Rs 1166.15 crore or 77.98%) followed by expenditure on Publicity Materials (Rs 222.1 crore or 14.85%) and Public Meetings (Rs 107.16 crore or 7.17%).

Of the total expenditure of the 32 political parties on publicity, Rs 1223.71 crore or 81.83% was spent by the National parties and Rs 271.70 crore or 18.17% was spent by the Regional parties.

The BJP incurred its maximum expenditure under publicity, spending a total of 43.58% or Rs. 651.64 crore of its funds there.

BJP spent the highest on media advertisement – Rs. 488.33 crore. The INC and BJD spent Rs. 411.39 crore (35.32%) and Rs. 71.26 crore (11%) for the same respectively.

Travel

The parties spent a total of Rs. 567.19 crore on travel. Out of this, national parties spent Rs. 487.33 crore (85.92%) and regional parties spend Rs. 79.86 crore (14.08%). Most of these funds were spent by parties on their ‘star campaigners’ and the remaining on the travel of their party leaders.

The ruling party spent Rs. 253.49 crore on the travel of star campaigners and it spent a total of Rs. 4.5 crore on the travel of party leaders. This number was followed by the CPM which incurred Rs. 1.14 crore of travel expenses.

Lumpsum amounts spent on candidates / miscellaneous spending

Out of the total lumpsum amount spent across all parties on candidates – Rs. 528.94 crore, the BJP also took the highest share here, spending Rs. 215.12 crore or (40.67%) of its earnings on candidates.

INC paid Rs 193.97 crore (36.67%), BJD, Rs 33.71 crore (6.37%), DMK, Rs 17.15 crore (3.24%) and CPI paid Rs 13.63 crore (2.58%) to their candidates.

The BJP also topped the charts in spending on miscellaneous expenses. It spent Rs. 246.28 crore or 61.72 percent of the total followed by BJD which spent Rs. 45.03 crore (11.28%) and YSRCP which incurred expenses worth Rs. 38.41 crore (9.63%) on other / miscellaneous expenses.

The BJP has come under fire for allegedly spending on publicity through unofficial or secretive efforts and overlooking the ethics of transparency in election funding. The ADR had earlier reported that in FY 2017 – 18, the largest seven political parties had received a combined income of Rs. 1,397 crore of which Rs. 1,027 crore (73.5%) belonged to the BJP alone. Out of this income that the BJP earned, most – Rs. 989 crore, came in through donations. Out of this, more than 50 percent was from ‘unknown sources’ due to the 2017 electoral bonds system, which keeps donor details anonymous.  

The Wire reported, since started term as the Central government in 2014 to October 2018, the Modi government had spent as much on ads as the Manmohan Singh government had spent in its ten years of power. Out of its total expenditure of nearly Rs 5,000 crore, Rs 2,136.39 crores was spent on advertising in the print media. Rs 2,211.11 crore was spent on electronic media.

In FY 2017 – 18, the BJP’s highest expense was election propaganda. It spent Rs. 567.43 crore on the same that year. It spend copious amounts of money on political ads on Google and Facebook and it was also the leading brand in TV advertising with its ads being aired 22,099 times to the public.

Related:

BJP gets lion’s share of donations in 2018 – 2019; a 70% increase in funding from ’17 – 18

EC files affidavit stating electoral bond donation details before SC

The post BJP spent highest on publicity; travel of party leaders in 2019 LS elections, reports ADR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Election Commission of India, on the basis of annual contribution reports submitted by political parties, has revealed that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) raised Rs. 800 crore in FY 19 ahead of the Lok Sabha elections in May this year. Corporate India contributed over Rs. 472 crore to the party and over 75%, Rs. 356 crore, came from the Tata group’s Progressive Electoral Trust (PET) alone.

It is to be noted that the contributions from PET have gone up 20 times since 2014-15. While in 2014-15, it disbursed Rs. 25.11 crore to political parties, this year the cdole out has gone up to Rs. 600 crore.

The Congress received around Rs. 99 crore from four electoral trusts, of which 56%, Rs. 55.6 crore was handed over by PET.

While donations to the ruling party almost trebled, the Congress saw a surge of over eight times from last year. According to a report by The Times of India, total contributions to the BJP this year were up 69.5% from Rs. 437.69 crore in 2017-18. Congress received total donations Rs 146.8 crore in 2018-19, up from Rs. 26.66 crore in 2017-18. 

(Image Credit – The Times of India)

It is also interesting to note that the PET, which had not contributed to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) last year, distributed Rs. 43 crore to the party this year.

The second largest donor to the BJP was Prudent Electoral Trust, which is funded by the Bharti Airtel, DLF and the Hero group. This trust donated Rs. 67 crore to the BJP and Rs. 39 crore to the Congress. Last year, Prudent Electoral Trust had contributed Rs. 154 crore to the BJP and only Rs. 10 crore to the Congress.

The A B General Trust, the fourth largest contributor made payouts of Rs. 28.5 crore to the BJP and Rs. 2 crore to the Congress. This up from Rs. 12.5 crore and Rs. 1 crore to the BJP and Congress respectively.

Bharatiya Socialist Republican Electoral Trust is the fourth largest contributor to the Congress, with a modest Rs. 25 lakh.

BJP also gained a total of Rs. 10 crore, Rs. 5 crore and another Rs. 2.5 crore from the Harmony Electoral Trust, Triumph Electoral Trust and New Democratic Electoral Trust and Janhit Electoral Trust.

Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) received Rs. 182.8 crore, Shiv Sena – Rs. 130.6 crore, TDP – Rs. 26.2 crore, YSR – Rs. 80.6 crore, CPM – approx. Rs. 3 crore, CPI – Rs. 1.6 crore and NCP – Rs. 12.1 crore. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) declared nil contributions in excess of Rs. 20,000.

However, experts say that these figures do not give a clear picture of the total funds. The EC has not made any announcement of funds received from electoral bonds which are more preferable to the corporate world as the identity of the donor is kept confidential. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court directed political parties to submit receipts of amounts and the identity of donors to the EC.

Electoral bonds have been with stern resistance from parties like the CPI (M). They argue that ordinary citizens will not be able to know who is donating how much to which political party. BJP has been the biggest beneficiary of electoral bonds, garnering 94.5% of the bonds worth around Rs. 210 crore.

Related:

Assembly numbers bust the hype of BJP’s electoral dominance

Yes, its BJP that received maximum corporate donations in 6 years: ADR report

SBI issued electoral bonds worth Rs 3,622 crore in March and April: RTI

The post Election Commission reveals Tatas gave Rs 356 crore to the BJP in 2018-19 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported in the PTI, Upadhyay had approached the Delhi HC on May 16 contending that use of names with religious connotations or symbols similar to the national flag or emblem might prejudicially affect the poll prospects of a candidate and would amount to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.

The plea stated, “Review the political parties registered with religious, caste, ethnic or linguistic connotations and ensure that they are not using a flag, similar to the national flag and deregister them if they fail to change it within three months.” The plea further added that such a step would help in ensuring free and fair elections.

Notably, Upadhyay, in his petition has mentioned the names of political parties such as Hindu Sena, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Indian Union Muslim League as examples of names with religious connotations and said this was “against the spirit” of the RPA and the Model Code of Conduct.

“In addition, there are many political parties including Indian National Congress, which use a flag similar to the national flag, which is also against the spirit of the RPA,” the plea has said.

While it is a right of every citizen to file a PIL for the larger good of the public, but such a plea in between the election season, that also from a BJP leader, raises questions on its motive. This is especially questionable considering the communal remarks passed by various BJP leaders including Amit Shah, Giriraj Singh and Yogi Adityanath.

Earlier, Giriraj Singh had appealed to the EC to ban green flags as “they spread hate and not love.” Taking a dig at Rahul Gandhi’s nomination from Wayanad (a Muslim majority constituency), Singh had said, “Did you see the procession in Wayanad when Rahul Gandhi filed his nomination papers? It seemed he was going to contest from Rawalpindi in Pakistan. The flags seen there bore so much resemblance with Pakistan flags.” However, those flags belonged to the Indian Union Muslim League, that has been named in Upadhyay’s PIL.

It is also significant to note that the PIL was filed just a few days before the final phase of the 2019 general election was to take place on May 19. Thus, the contention that deregistration of parties who fail to change their names or symbols would help in free and fair elections doesn’t hold good.

Therefore, there is a high probability of the presence of a political angle associated to this PIL.

The Delhi HC has deferred the hearing till May 24.
Related Articles:

1. “Ban Green Flags, They Spread Hate Not Love”: Begusarai BJP candidate Giriraj Singh
2. Hindutva’s hidden agenda behind the ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ patriotism-test
3. SC to Hear Congress Plea over Inaction by EC against MCC Violations by Modi-Shah Duo

The post PIL in Delhi HC by BJP Leader for Reviewing Party Names or Symbols with Religious Connotations, HC Defers Hearing till May 24 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Newsclick.in
 
In the petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury before the Supreme Court with regards to the electoral bonds, the BJP-led central government said in an affidavit that the decision to issue electoral bonds would promote transparency in funding and donations received by political parties.
 
It could be a political eyewash and self-serving interests as the BJP was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral bond scheme launched by the government in 2017-18, bagging 94.5% of the bonds worth a little over Rs. 210 crore.
 
The BJP’s audit and income tax reports submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI) list voluntary contribution of “Rs 210,00,02,000 through electoral bonds”, Economic Times review of the party’s annual audit report for 2017-18 shows.
 
Electoral reforms activists, former chief election commissioners, and constitutional experts have slammed this move for obfuscating transparency rather than enhancing it. It would make political funding, especially by corporations, more opaque as neither the donors nor the parties have to reveal who donated what to which party. That itself violates the constitutional principle of free and fair elections.
 
Spending on the election ending May 23 is set to rise 40 per cent to 500 billion rupees ($7 billion), according to the New Delhi-based Centre for Media Studies. “It won’t be an exaggeration to say our elections will never be the same again,” said N. Bhaskara Rao, the group’s chairman, who has advised previous Indian governments in a report by The New Indian Express. “What is this if not the auctioning of our democracy to the highest-paying corporation?” he said.
 
What are electoral bonds
Anyone can buy an electoral bond at the government-owned State Bank of India in denominations ranging from 1,000 rupees to 10 million rupees ($14 to $140,000). Afterwards, they are delivered to a political party, which can exchange them for cash. They don’t carry the name of the donor and are exempt from tax.
 
They are available for a period of 10 days each in the months of January, April, July and October, with an additional period of 30 days specified by the central government in the year of general elections.
 
The bonds can be purchased only after making payment through KYC-compliant account. They can be encashed by an eligible political party only through a designated bank account with the authorised bank.
 
An electoral bond is valid for 15 days from the date of issue. No payment would be made to any payee political party if the bond is deposited after the expiry of the validity period. The bond deposited by any eligible political party into its account would be credited on the same day.
 
SBI is the only authorised bank to issue such bonds.
 
Who can buy electoral bonds
As per the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be purchased by a person, who is a citizen of India or entities incorporated or established in India. A person can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly, with other individuals.
 
Even foreign companies can buy electoral bonds.
 
Which parties can receive electoral bonds
Any party that is registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and has secured not less than 1% of the votes polled in the last election of the Lok Sabha or legislative assembly will be eligible to receive electoral bonds.
 
No opposition to overhaul
“India’s campaign finance overhaul began in 2017, when parliament approved an amendment that made it easier for companies to donate to campaigns, including removing a cap on corporate donations (the maximum used to be 7.5 per cent of a company’s average net profits over three years). Now new firms can also donate to political parties, opening the door for shell companies to be set up expressly for the purpose,” TNIE reported.
 
Requirements for companies to disclose how much they donated and to which party were also eliminated.
 
The changes were introduced in parliament via a money bill, a measure that only needs to be passed by the lower house controlled by Modi’s ruling coalition and not the opposition-led upper house.
 
A similar tactic was used to pass with little debate rules that changed the definition of a foreign company. Previously, all subsidiaries of international entities were treated as overseas donors and not allowed to make political contributions. Now if a foreign firm has a stake of less than 50 per cent in a company operating in India, that unit can fund Indian elections.
 
While several lawmakers protested the moves, analysts said the amendments will benefit both Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party as well as the main opposition Congress party. It was said that nobody from the opposition spoke up because they too could gain if they came to power.
 
Experts unanimously slam move
This wide leeway to corporates have drawn the ire of Jagdeep Chhokar, founder-member of the Delhi-based civil rights organisation Association of Democratic Reforms and a long-time crusader for electoral reforms. It was because of his petition in the PIL against Finance Bill unduly favouring corporations in political funding, that the Supreme Court issued a notice to the central government and Election Commission.

Chhokhar insisted that the government at the Centre is “hoodwinking the public and electorate”, because although political parties would have to show the amount of political funding in their balance sheet, they do not have to disclose to which party they have donated, Newsclick reported.
 
If the donation is made to the ruling government, the electorate would have no way of knowing the extent of crony capitalism because the party in power would obviously “reward” major and significant donors with government contracts, licenses and tenders. Moreover, the government in power would get detailed information on which the corporation has donated what amount, and can thus arm twist those who have funded its rivals more, he said in the report.
 
S Y Quraishi, a former chief election commissioner echoed Chhokhar in the report. He agreed about the apprehension of potential arm twisting by the powers-that-be. He said that the electoral bonds are the exact antithesis of transparency. The bonds will ensure the anonymity of donors, but “also kill whatever little transparency that exists now.”
 
He said, “The removal of the ceiling of 7.5% of a company’s profits that could be donated has compounded the problem. Very soon we will see companies spending all their profits on politics alone and control governments. So far, all donations above Rs 20,000 are disclosed by political parties to the Election Commission. In future, no one will know which corporation donated how much and to which party. And the inevitable quid pro quo will never be apparent.”
 
Nasim Zaidi, ex-chief election commissioner who retired in July last year has also voiced his misgivings about the government not consulting the EC before introducing electoral bonds though that was mandated by law, and also stated that because of electoral bonds, corporations would never file the donations they made to political parties, thereby trampling on the people’s fundamental right to know.
 
Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia has explained why these bonds are a threat to democracy, while Suhrith Parthasarathy, a lawyer practising in the Madras High Court, has detailed how they reward corruption, the report said.
 
The mounting criticism is apparent and the bonds are under immense scrutiny considering the nearing Lok Sabha elections. Will it be the country’s democracy that sizzles on this political self-serving hot plate?
 

The post Is India’s democracy being sold through electoral bonds? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: https://www.governancenow.com

After his budget speech in 2017, Arun Jaitley made promises to clean up the sale of electoral bonds and make political funding more transparent. It only made the process less transparent than before under the garb of donations being made by ‘cheque’ and not cash, claiming that no bank deposits could be black money if they were made in cheques.
 
There has been a significant change in how political parties are funded ever since the March and April sales of electoral bonds (EB’s). An RTI application for information on the buyers of EBs and the political parties that received them by Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, CHRI (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative,) was rejected by State Bank of India. They even sent the wrong data concerning EB sale in his RTI application and admitted they goofed up later on.
 
Full text of Venkatesh Nayak’s statement
Readers may recollect my despatch from June 2018 about the refusal of the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) information about the buyers of Electoral Bonds (EBs) and political parties which received them. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied information about buyers and the denominations of EBs they purchased, saying that compiling such information would lead to disproportionate diversion of the Bank’s resources.
 
He also decided that all reports sent to the Central Government about the sale and purchase of EBs were in “fiduciary capacity” and could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. SBI’s CPIO provided only denomination-wise figures for the sale of EBs through the designated branches. Even this data did not match with the data the same CPIO had earlier supplied to Mr. Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu, of Factly.in and one of my fellow Co-Convenors of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). So I filed a first appeal with SBI’s First Appellate Authority (FAA) in July, 2018.
 
The SBI’s FAA has now admitted that the CPIO, SBI goofed up while providing the EB sale data against my RTI application. In his latest communication following the FAA’s order, the CPIO has stated that the EB sale data he provided for the Gandhinagar Branch earlier actually belonged to Bengaluru branch of SBI! (click here for my first appeal and the FAA’s order)

SBI’s FAA upholds CPIO’s rejection order mechanically
As the Hon’ble Union Finance Minister had claimed that EB Scheme would introduce greater transparency in political party funding, when he read out his budget speech in Parliament, in February 2017, (see paras # 164-165 of his speech), I decided to go on a “Quest for Transparency” – a highlight of the website of the Prime Minister’s Office. Readers will remember, after the Government launched the EB Scheme in January, 2018, SBI announced the first phase of sale of EBs in March, 2018. July 2018 saw the 4th phase of sale of EBs. After the 2nd phase of sale in April, 2018 was completed, I decided to ask for the following information in an RTI application sent to SBI in May, 2018:

“Apropos of the Government of India notifying your Bank as the “Authorised Bank” for the purpose of sale and encashment of Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, I would like to obtain the following information about the same under the RTI Act:
 
(i)  The denomination-wise total number of electoral bonds sold by each of your authorised branches in March and April 2018 along with the total number of buyers of each denomination;
(ii) The total number of buyers of electoral bonds in each category, namely, individuals, HUF, Company, Firm, Charitable Trust and Others who purchased electoral bonds from each of your authorised branches in March and April 2018;
(iii) A clear photocopy of all application forms received by your authorised branches against which electoral bonds were sold in March and April, 2018;
(iv) A clear photocopy of all redemption slips received and accepted by your authorised branches from every political party in relation to electoral bonds till date;
(v) The methodology applied by your Bank to ascertain whether or not a political party redeeming electoral bonds with any of your authorised branches had secured at least 1% of the votes polled during the last round of general elections to Parliament or the State Legislatures, till date;
 (vi) A clear photocopy of all Declarations of Beneficial Ownership received from companies purchasing electoral Bonds in March and April, 2018.
(vii) A clear photocopy of all returns or reports, by whatever name called, submitted by your Bank to the Government of India regarding the sale and encashment of electoral bonds till date; and
(viii) A clear photocopy of all returns or reports, by whatever name called, submitted by your Bank to the Reserve Bank of India regarding the sale and encashment of electoral bonds till date.”

Readers may click here to view the RTI documents and the preliminary analysis of the sale figures that the CPIO provided to me in June 2018. Now the CPIO has admitted that the 57 EBs he initially showed as having been sold through the Gandhinagar Branch in Gujarat, were actually sold through the Bengaluru branch of SBI in Karnataka. (click here for the CPIO’s latest communication) 
 
SBI sold 10 EBs of INR 1,00,000 denomination (Rs. 10 lakhs or 1 million), 38 EBs of INR 10,00,000 denomination (Rs. 3.8 crores or 38 million) and 9 EBs of INR 1,00,00,000 (Rs. 9 crores or 90 million) denomination totaling INR 12,900,000 (Rs. 12.93 crores or 129.3 million) through its designated branch in Bengaluru. 
 
The CPIO had earlier denied access to information about the beneficial ownership declarations submitted by companies and firms that bought EBs and the reports about EB sale submitted to the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) claiming that they were covered by Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which applies to information held in a fiduciary relationship. SBI’s FAA mechanically “concurred” with the CPIO’s order without any detailed reasons. Except for stating that I had made my arguments based on RBI’s Master Circular and the Supreme Court’s explanation of how a RBI could not claim “fiduciary relationship” with the Banks it regulates, the FAA did not bother to examine the validity of the CPIO’s order against those arguments. 
 
 Para #25 of RBI’s July 2015 Master Circular states as follows:
 
“25. Customer Confidentiality Obligations
The scope of the secrecy law in India has generally followed the common law principles based on implied contract. The bankers’ obligation to maintain secrecy arises out of the contractual relationship between the banker and customer, and as such no information should be divulged to third parties except under circumstances which are well defined. The following exceptions to the said rule are normally accepted:
i.         Where disclosure is under compulsion of law
ii.         Where there is duty to the public to disclose
iii.         Where interest of bank requires disclosure and
iv.         Where the disclosure is made with the express or implied consent of the customer.”
So when SBI is in a contractual relationship with its customers, according to the RBI, its CPIO cannot claim the protection of “fiduciary” relationship as well. A fiduciary relationship is a trust-based relationship. This position has been clearly explained by the Supreme Court of India. 
 
In December 2015, in the matter of Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah & Ors., vs. Reserve Bank of India [(1996) 9 SCC 650], the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected RBI’s claim that it stands in a “fiduciary” relationship with the Banks that it regulate. This ruling came in the context of information requests regarding non-performing assets (NPAs) and loan defaulters from public sector banks. The relevant paras from the judgement are reproduced below:
 
“58. In the instant case, the RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions (though, in word it puts itself to be in that position) because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of each other. By attaching an additional “fiduciary” label to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem [in fear] effect….
 
59. RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as India’s Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority to oversee the functioning of the banks and the country’s banking sector….
 
60. RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of ‘trust’ between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the respondents herein.” 
 
62. The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) applies to exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable. If the information is available with a regulatory agency not in a fiduciary relationship, there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the same. 

However, where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial institutions have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and such an information shared under an obligation/ duty cannot be considered to come under the purview of being shared in fiduciary relationship.”
 
 It is only obvious that the same ratio will apply to SBI in its relationship with the RBI and the Government of India. There can be no ‘fiduciary’ relationship between them. 
 
SBI’s FAA refused to examine the correctness of the CPIO’s reply in light of the RBI’s Master Circular of July 2015 and the Apex Court’s ruling on the nature of “fiduciary relationship” in Jayantilal Mistry. The FAA also ignored my citation of case law, decided by the Central Information Commission twelve years ago, about the illegal practice of using Section 7(9) of the RTI Act for refusing access to information. He has upheld the CPIO’s decision to reject information about buyers of EBs by agreeing that such information is not available in compiled for and compiling it would disproportionately divert SBI’s resources. My argument that Section 7(9) cannot be used to reject an RTI application but must be used to facilitate access to the requested information in any other form were simply ignored by the FAA. The FAA chose to mechanically uphold the CPIO’s decision- an indication of a refusal to apply one’s mind despite compelling case law. He could have permitted file inspection but he chose not to so do. So much for the Quest for Transparency of political party funding through the sale of EBs.

Of course, soon, I will file a second appeal before he Central Information Commission against the orders of the CPIO and the FAA of SBI.
 
Electoral Bonds Scheme explained in brief
 
The EB Scheme allows any person (including HUF), company, firm, charitable trust or unincorporated body of individuals to buy EBs from the designated branches of SBI during each window of sale that the government announces from time to time. EBs are in the nature of promissory notes and carry no rate of interest. The identity of the buyer is not recorded on the EB. So the political party will have no formal mechanism to know who is the actual donor through EB. A buyer could send the EBs through his/her chauffeur to be delivered at the office of a political party. EBs have a validity of 15 days only. There is no limit on how many or how much worth of EBs any person can buy. Recipient political parties have to redeem the EBs within this period using an SBI account. The value of EBs will not be credited to any other bank where the political party may have an account.  If they miss the 15-day deadline neither the buyer nor the recipient political party gets the money back. Instead it will be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund (see 3rd attachment for the Gazette notification of the EB scheme). 
 
Through the Finance Act, 2017, the Government of India made the following changes to the statutory scheme of political party funding :
 
1) Cash donations to political parties must not be more than Rs. 2,000/- from one donor;
 
2) Donations of any amount may be made to political parties through cheques, bank drafts or electronic transfers by individuals and companies, associations, trusts etc.;
 
3) The RBI Act, 1934 was amended to provide statutory recognition of electoral bonds
 
4) The Income Tax Act, 1961 was amended to relieve political parties from the obligation of reporting details of donations received through EBs to the tax authorities in order to continue to avail IT exemption;
 
5) The Representation of the People Act, 1951 was amended to relieve political parties from the obligation of maintaining the identity of donors who use EBs and disclosing the same to the Election Commission of India; and
 
6) The Companies Act, 2013 was amended to completely remove the cap on registered companies for making donations to political parties. Earlier, they could donate not mote than 7.5% of their net profit during the three preceding years and publicly disclose the same in their profit and loss at the end of the year. Thanks to the 2017 amendments which became operational in April 2018, a company can in theory donate its entire share capital to political parties soon after formation and then wind up. Limits on both time and amounts have been removed. Further, there is no duty place don companies to reveal the name of the political party to which they donate any amount of money, (let alone through EBs) in their profit and loss account).
 
So much for increased transparency in political party funding. Like I remarked a day after the EB idea was announced through the annual budget in February 2017, this is a backward leap to the era of secrecy and the new “transparent” system is proving it time and again.
 
Venkatesh Nayak is the Programme Coordinator, CHRI.
 
Related Articles: 
Should Political Funding in India be Transparent?
Foreign Funding for Political Parties: SC Issues Notices to Centre
Who are the Unknown Sources that the BJP Received 464.94 Crores From?

The post SBI rejects RTI seeking details on who funds political parties appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The BJP’s current income is Rs 1,034.28 crore, nearly equal to the total income of all national parties in the previous year. The party’s income in 2015-16 was Rs 570.86 crore.
 
This is also the highest income the party, which has 273 seats in the Lok Sabha (Parliament’s lower house)–its highest ever–has generated in the last four years since 2014, according to an IndiaSpend analysis of yearly reports by the ADR.
 
Meanwhile, the Congress, which has 48 seats–its lowest ever–received its lowest income in four years.
 
The Congress earned Rs 225.36 crore in 2016-17, a drop of 13.8% from Rs 261.26 crore the previous fiscal year. Its share of total political party income dropped 10.8 percentage points, from 25.3% in 2015-16 to 14.5% in the current year.
 
The income of the seven national parties increased 50.9%, from Rs 1,033.18 crore in 2015-16 to Rs 1,559.17 crore in 2016-17.

 
While the BJP and Congress have the highest share of the total income earned by all political parties, both the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the National Communist Party (NCP) reported the highest percentage increase in income over the financial year to 2016-17.
 
The BSP’s income increased from Rs 47.38 crore to Rs 126.19 crore, while the NCP witnessed a rise in income from Rs 9.14 crore to Rs 173.58 crore between the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17, increases of 266.3% and 88.6% respectively.
 
Along with the Congress, the income of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and Communist Party of India – Marxist (CPM) declined 81.5% and 6.7%, respectively.
 
Major sources of income: Donations, contributions and coupons
 
Both the BJP and the Congress declared donations and contributions as their main source of income. While grants/donations/contributions made up 96.4% (Rs 997.12 crore) of the BJP’s income in 2016-17, they made up 22.5% (Rs. 50.6 crore) of the Congress’ income.
 
The largest share of income for the Congress came from issuing coupons of various denominations (worth Rs 100-500 and more) to party members and identified donors, for fundraising.
 
The coupons–which accounted for 51.3% (Rs 115.6 crore) of the party’s income in the year 2017–were introduced by a committee under former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2001 to bring more transparency to the party’s fundraising process, the Hindu reported on December 22, 2001.
 
“However, these coupons are neither numbered nor can they be tracked, which makes it impossible to audit the contributions or where the income is coming from,” ADR’s founder-trustee Jagdeep Chhokar, a former professor and director of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, told IndiaSpend. “All recommendations for issuing numbered coupons were rejected by the party, which eliminates transparency from the equation.”
 
Details of the donors and contributors were marked as “unavailable” or left blank on most disclosures filed by parties.
 

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms
 
The deadline for submitting the annual audited accounts for the parties was October 30, 2017. Four of seven national parties (BJP, Congress, NCP and CPI) have a record of consistently delaying audit reports over the past five years.
 
While the BJP and Congress delayed audit reports by an average of six months over the last five years year, for the current year, their submissions were delayed by almost three and five months, respectively.
 
BJP outspent Congress by 120.7% in 2016-17
 
While the BJP’s earnings have risen significantly, its expenditure has not kept pace over the four years to 2017.
 
While the BJP’s income over the 2016-17 increased 81.2%, as we said, its expenditure rose 61.8%. The highest year-on-year increase in the BJP’s expenditure was in 2014-15: up 177.9%, from  Rs. 328.51 crore in 2013-14 to Rs 913 crore in 2014-15.
 

However, in 2016-17, the Congress spent more than it earned.
 
Even with a nearly 14% drop in income in the year 2017, Congress expenditure rose 66.4% over the previous year. In contrast, during 2015-16, Congress expenditure fell 74.7%, from Rs 765.02 crore in 2014-15 to Rs 193.26 crore in 2015-16.
 
Election spending is main political expenditure
 
Elections and general propaganda accounted for the largest share (85.4% or Rs 606.64 crore) of the ruling party’s expenditure.
 
The Congress spent 46.5% (Rs 149.65 crore) of its expenditure on elections and 35.9% (Rs 116.7 crore) on administrative and general expenditure.
 

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms
 
(Prabhu is a data analyst with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post BJP’s Income Rose 81% in 2017, Congress’ Declined 14% appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(Known donations above Rs 20,000 only)

For complete report in English and the summary in Hindi, containing sector-wise in-depth analysis of donations received by National Parties between FY 2012-13 & 2015-16, kindly refer to the attached reports.

Introduction

Political parties are required to submit details of donors who have made donations above Rs 20,000 in a financial year (between 1^st April and 31^st March) to the Election Commission of India, every year. Parties provide details of the name, address, PAN, mode of payment and amount contributed by each donor who has made donation above Rs 20,000 in their submission.
 

• Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in its earlier report dated 8^th January, 2014, specified that various sectors of business houses in 8 years, between FY 2004-05 & 2011-12, donated a total of Rs 378.89 cr to National Parties, constituting 87% of the total contribution from known sources of political parties.
• This report analyses the donations from corporates to National Parties between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16.
• Political parties considered for the report are BJP, INC, NCP, CPI and CPM. Though a National party, BSP has not been considered for analysis in this report as the party has declared that it received no voluntary contributions above Rs 20,000 from any donor between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16.
• It is seen from the analysis that various sectors of business houses, in 4 years, donated a total of Rs 956.77 cr, constituting 89% of the total contribution to political parties from known sources.

 
Graph: Percentage share of donations from various business houses to National Parties, between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16

Executive Summary

1. Donations from corporate/ business houses
   1. Out of the 5 National Parties, BJP received the maximum donations of Rs 705.81 cr from 2987 corporate donors followed by INC which received a total contribution of Rs 198.16 cr from 167 corporate donors.
   2. Between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16, BJP’s and INC’s voluntary contributions above Rs 20,000 from corporate/business houses is 92% and 85% respectively.
   3. CPI and CPM have the lowest share of corporate donations at 4% and 17% respectively.

 
Graph: Share of donations from corporate/business houses in total donations to national parties between FY 2012-13 to 2015-16

1. Year-wise corporate donations to National Parties
   1. National parties have received the maximum corporate donations in the FY 2014-15, during which Lok Sabha elections were held.
   2. Corporate donations received in FY 2014-15 alone forms 60% of the total corporate donations received between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16.
   3. Donations from corporates to National Parties reduced by 86.58% between FY 2014-15 and 2015-16.
   4.  
2.  Top corporate donors to National Parties
   1. Despite not donating during FY 2012-13, Satya Electoral Trust was the top donor to three of the National Parties, between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16. The Trust donated a total of 35 number of times in 3 years, amounting to Rs 260.87 cr.
   2. BJP declared receiving Rs 193.62 cr while INC was the recipient of Rs 57.25 cr of funds from the trust. NCP received Rs 10 cr from Satya Electoral Trust during the same period.
   3. General Electoral Trust, which was formed before the Electoral Scheme was launched by the Government in 2013, was the second highest corporate donor to BJP and INC. Between FY 2012-13 & 2015-16, the Trust donated Rs 70.7 cr and Rs 54.1 cr to the two National Parties, respectively.
   4. CPI and CPM: The top donors to the Communist parties were ‘Associations’ or ‘Unions’. CPI received a total of Rs 14.64 lakhs from 15 different associations/ unions while CPM received a total of Rs 1.09 cr from 7 different associations.

1. Categorization of donors based on their type of businesses

            a)The contributions from corporate/ business houses have been divided into 14 sectors by ADR and does not form a part of the submission made by parties to  ECI. The sectors include Trusts & Group of companies, Manufacturing, oil & power, mining, construction, exports/imports, real estate among others.
             b)A total of Rs 956.77 cr was donated by all the corporate/ business houses to the 5 National Parties between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16.
            c)For “Categorization of various corporate/ business houses” for the purpose of this analysis, please refer to Page 6 of the attached report. Various business interests of the groups of companies is provided in Annexure -1
            d)Donations from Electoral Trusts to National Parties between FY 2012-13 & 2015-16 is given in Annexure – 2.
 5.     Sectors with top donations to National Parties – Year-wise

            a)      The real-estate sector was the biggest donor to the National Parties during FY 2012-13, contributing a total amount of Rs 16.95 cr to the parties. BJP received the                 highest contribution of Rs 15.96 cr followed by INC with Rs 95 lakhs and CPM with Rs 4 lakhs.

            b)      Trusts and Groups of Companies with varied interests in mining, real-estate, power, newspapers etc., donated the highest amount of Rs 419.69 cr, between                 FY 2013-14 to 2015-16, to the National Parties.

            c)       Between FY 2012-13 & 2015-16, manufacturing sector was the second highest overall contributor, contributing a total of Rs 123.67 cr to the 5 National Parties.
 

• Political parties which received maximum contributions from various sectors
  1. BJP, INC and NCP, all three received the maximum contributions from Trusts & Group of companies. BJP received the highest, Rs 287.69 cr from Trusts & Group of companies, followed by INC with Rs 129.16 cr and NCP with Rs 15.78 cr.
  2. BJP received the highest donations from all 14 sectors including Real-estate (Rs 105.20 cr), Mining, construction, exports/ imports (Rs 83.56 cr), Chemicals/ Pharmaceuticals (Rs 31.94 cr) etc.
  3.  

1. Donations without PAN details and address:
   1. A total of 1933 donations through which national parties received Rs 384.04 cr do not have PAN details in the contribution form.
   2. National parties have received Rs 355.08 cr from 1546 donations which do not have address details in the contribution form.
   3. 99% of such donations without PAN and address details worth Rs 159.59 cr belong to the BJP.

1. Unsegregated donations:
   1. Political parties reported receiving 262 donations worth Rs 10.48 cr from such corporate entities who have zero internet presence or if they do there is ambiguity about the nature of their work.
   2. Contact details of most of these companies were unavailable in cases where they were visible online.

Recommendations of ADR

1. The Supreme Court gave a judgment on 13-09-2013, declaring that no part of a candidate affidavit should be left blank. Similarly, no part of the Form 24A submitted by political parties providing details of donations above Rs 20,000, should be blank.
2. All donors who have donated a minimum of Rs 20,000 as a single or multiple donations should provide their PAN details.
3. Date on which the donation was made should be recorded by the party and submitted in Form 24A.
4. Any party which does not submit its donation statement to the ECI on or before 31^st Oct should be heavily penalized and its income should not be tax-exempted.
5. A total of Rs 159.67 cr was collected by the National Parties from 1062 corporate donors without obtaining their PAN and Address details. Such incomplete contributions reports must be returned to the parties by the ECI, to deter them from providing incomplete information.
6. Corporates should make details of their political contributions available in public domain through their websites (in annual reports or in a dedicated page) for increasing transparency in political financing.
7. Annual scrutiny of donations reports of National, Regional and unrecognized parties should be initiated by a dedicated department of the CBDT, to discourage donations from shell companies or illegal entities.

 

Web:

 myneta.info      

  adrindia.org

 

Find ADR on Facebook

Find ADR on Twitter

The post For Indian Corporates, Its the BJP that was the Preferred Party for Largesse: 2012-2016 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Navjot Singh Sidhu and other leaders of the Congress party during a campaign rally in the run-up to the recently concluded Punjab assembly election. About half (2,410) of India’s members of parliament and legislative assemblies declared household assets of more than Rs 2 crore, of which 38% declared family incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh

As many as 75% of MPs and MLAs nationwide declared annual incomes less than Rs 10 lakh, the analysis found. Around 35% of lawmakers said their annual income is less than Rs 2.5 lakh while 40% have declared annual income between Rs 2.5 lakh and Rs 10 lakh. As many as 1,141 (24%) MPs and MLAs claimed exemption from income tax or have no income at all.

“We can conclude that we are largely a tax non-compliant society,” Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said, sarcastically, during his budget speech on February 1, 2017.

Sharing income tax data, Jaitley said that of 37 million individuals who filed tax returns in 2015-16, 9.9 million (27%) declared annual incomes below the exemption limit of Rs 2.5 lakh; 19.5 million (53%) declared annual incomes between Rs 2.5 lakh and Rs 5 lakh, while 7.6 million (20%) declared annual incomes of more than Rs 5 lakh.

If the annual incomes of family (incomes of spouse and dependents, as declared in their respective tax returns) are added to the incomes of MPs and MLAs, 62% legislators’ households have an income less than Rs 10 lakh.

About half (2,410) of India’s MPs and MLAs have declared household assets (movable and immovable assets of the elected member, spouse and dependent/s) of more than Rs 2 crore, of which 912 (38% of 2,410) declared family incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh.

Of 1,843 MPs and MLAs with family incomes of more than Rs 10 lakh, 106 declared household assets of less than Rs 1 crore.

Only quarter of 4,848 MPs/MLAs declare income more than Rs 10 lakh

Only 25% (1,236 of 4,848) of MPs and MLAs declared in tax returns that their annual incomes were more than Rs 10 lakh;  35% (1,676 of 4,848) declared incomes less than Rs 2.5 lakh.

Among regional parties, 83% Samajwadi Party (SP) MPs and MLAs, 78% of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), 68% of Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and 80% of Biju Janata Dal (BJD) lawmakers reported incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh.

For details on income ranges upto Rs 10 lakh, click here.

While 63% Lok Sabha MPs declared annual incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh, only 13% Rajya Sabha MPs declared annual incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh.

Among states, over 80% of MLAs in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Odisha declared annual incomes less than Rs 10 lakh.

For details on income ranges upto Rs 10 lakh, click here.

24% legislators declared no income

As many as 1,676 (35%) elected representatives declared annual incomes less than Rs 2.5 lakh. Of these, 1,141 (24%) reported to the Election Commission that they were either exempt from income tax on various grounds, such as being a farmer, being from an area mentioned in the sixth schedule of the constitution–such as the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura–and so exempt from income tax, or have no income at all.
 

Total family income of MPs and MLAs

Only 38% (1,843 of 4848) legislators said they had annual family incomes (income of an MP or an MLA and incomes of family, such as spouse and dependents/s), more than Rs 10 lakh; 28% (1,343 of 4,848) declared family incomes less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
 

Half of all MPs/MLAs declared household assets of more than Rs 2 crore

Half of India’s elected representatives declared household assets of more than Rs 2 crore; 28% more than Rs 5 crore. As many as 70% of MPs and MLAs had assets more than Rs 1 crore.

Although assets are supposed to be declared by elected representatives at market price, immovable assets are grossly under valued, Indian Express reported in December 2013.

A former Election Commissioner said the law was not being used to value assets by lawmakers accurately and urged people to go to court to force lawful evaluations, Indian Express reported in December 2013.
 

The correlation between assets and incomes of MPs and MLAs

“How long will we overlook facts that stare us in the face?” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on December 31, 2016. “ I wish to share some information with you, which will either make you laugh, or make you angry. According to information available with the government, only 24 lakh people in India accept that their annual income is more than Rs 10 lakh.”

“If we look at any big city, it would have lakhs of people with annual income of more than Rs 10 lakh. Do you not feel that for the good of the country, this movement for honesty needs to be further strengthened?

”In some way, the Prime Minister drew a correlation between assets and income declared to tax authorities. We found a weak correlation existed between the assets and incomes of MPs and MLAs.

Income-Assets Correlation Of Lawmakers

1. 38% (912 of 2,410) legislators with assets more than Rs 2 crore declared family incomes of less than Rs 10 lakh.
2. Of 1,079 lawmakers with assets in the range of Rs 2 crore and Rs 5 crore, only 44% (474) declared incomes more than Rs 10 lakh.
3. 22% (255 of 1,651) with assets between Rs 2 crore and Rs 10 crore declared incomes less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
4. 41% (891 of 2,155) with assets between Rs 2 crore and Rs 30 crore declared incomes less than Rs 10 lakh.
5. Of 156 lawmakers with household assets more than Rs 50 crore, 10 declared incomes less than Rs 10 lakh.
6. Of 75 legislators with assets more than Rs 100 crore, four reported incomes less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
7. 7% (106 out of 1,470) with assets less than Rs 1 crore declared annual incomes more than Rs 10 lakh.
8. As many as 2,410 elected representatives (MPs/MLAs) declared household assets of more than Rs 2 crore, of which 912 (out of 2410, 38%) disclosed family incomes less than Rs 10 lakh.

MPs/MLAs with incomes more than Rs 10 lakh

Of 1,843 (38% of 4,848) elected representatives who declared family annual incomes more than Rs 10 lakh, 345 (19% of 1,843) declared assets less than Rs 2 crore. As many as 903 MPs and MLAs declared family incomes between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 20 lakh; 410 declared more than Rs 50 lakh.

Income-Assets Correlation Of Lawmakers With Annual Income Over Rs 10 Lakh

Note: All data sourced from affidavits filed by the MPs and MLAs with the Election Commission of India, and correspond to the year preceding their election.

Correction: The headline has been corrected to reflect that 24%, and not 21%, of India’s MPs and MLAs claimed exemption from income tax or have no income at all. We regret the error.

(Manoj K is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, and the founder of the Centre for Governance and Development. He has a special interest in transparency and accountability in governance and has spearheaded several projects on these subjects.)

This article was first Published on India Spend

The post 24% India’s MPs/MLAs Say They Don’t Need To Pay Tax Or Have No Income appeared first on SabrangIndia.