BJP received ₹6,088 crore in donations in 2024-25, nearly 12 times more than the Congress

Understanding political funding is paramount for any aspirant preparing for competitive exams, as it delves into the very core of India's democratic functioning, governance, and economic landscape. The recent revelation that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received a staggering ₹6,088 crore in donations for the fiscal year 2024-25, nearly 12 times more than the Indian National Congress, throws a sharp spotlight on the financial disparities in Indian politics.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

Political funding in democracies is essential for parties to operate, campaign, and connect with voters. However, in India, it has historically been a contentious issue, plagued by concerns of black money, lack of transparency, and quid pro quo arrangements. Prior to reforms, much of the funding was opaque, often in cash, making it difficult to trace sources and ensure accountability. To address these issues, various mechanisms have been introduced, including the Electoral Trusts Scheme in 2013. Electoral Trusts are non-profit companies formed specifically to receive voluntary contributions from individuals and corporates and disburse them to political parties. They were designed to bring a degree of transparency by requiring disclosure of donors and recipients.

The recent data highlights that Prudent Electoral Trust, one of the most prominent such trusts, was the top donor, disbursing ₹2,668 crore to 15 political parties in the last fiscal year (2023-24). While the article specifically mentions BJP's FY 2024-25 figures, the Prudent Electoral Trust data pertains to FY 2023-24. The significant financial advantage of the BJP over the Congress, and indeed over most other parties, underscores a growing concern about the level playing field in Indian elections.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Political Parties (BJP, Indian National Congress, Regional Parties):** These are the primary recipients of funds. The BJP, as the ruling party, benefits significantly from corporate and individual donations, reflecting a trend often seen globally where incumbent parties attract more funding. The Congress and other opposition parties struggle to match this financial muscle.

2. **Electoral Trusts (e.g., Prudent Electoral Trust):** These entities act as intermediaries, collecting funds from multiple donors and distributing them to political parties. While they aim to streamline donations, the ultimate influence of their corporate donors remains a subject of debate.

3. **Donors (Corporates, Individuals, Institutions):** These entities contribute funds, often with an expectation of access, policy influence, or simply to support a party aligned with their interests. Corporate donations, in particular, raise concerns about crony capitalism and undue influence on governance.

4. **Election Commission of India (ECI):** Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI is responsible for the superintendence, direction, and control of elections. While it mandates disclosure of donations above a certain threshold, its powers to regulate the *sources* of funds, especially through complex mechanisms, have been a point of debate and judicial scrutiny.

5. **Citizens/Voters:** They are the ultimate stakeholders, whose right to an informed choice is impacted by the transparency (or lack thereof) in political funding. The financial disparity can lead to an unequal electoral battle, where money rather than merit or ideology dictates outcomes.

**Significance for India and Historical Context:**

This financial disparity has profound implications for India's democratic health. A heavily funded party can employ more sophisticated campaign strategies, reach a wider audience, and potentially influence public opinion more effectively, creating an uneven playing field. This challenges the principles of free and fair elections, a cornerstone of India's democracy. Historically, political funding has been a hotbed of controversy. The now-scrapped Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced in 2018, was a major attempt to formalize donations but faced widespread criticism for its opacity regarding donor identity, eventually being struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2024 for violating the right to information (Article 19(1)(a)) of citizens. Electoral Trusts, like Prudent, emerged as an alternative, but the sheer scale of donations received by a single party still raises questions about corporate influence.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, and Policies:**

* **Representation of the People Act, 1951:** This act governs the conduct of elections and mandates political parties to submit audited accounts and disclose donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI.

* **Companies Act, 2013:** This act, particularly its Section 182, deals with corporate donations to political parties. Amendments in 2017 removed the cap on corporate donations (which was 7.5% of net profit), effectively allowing unlimited donations, though this was effectively reversed by the SC's Electoral Bonds judgment.

* **Income Tax Act, 1961:** Section 13A grants tax exemptions to political parties, provided they maintain proper books of accounts and get them audited.

* **Article 324:** Empowers the ECI to conduct free and fair elections.

* **Electoral Trusts Scheme, 2013:** This specific policy framework governs the operation of electoral trusts, mandating them to register with the CBDT and disburse 95% of their funds to political parties within a fiscal year.

**Future Implications:**

The significant financial gap highlights the urgent need for comprehensive electoral finance reforms. Post the Electoral Bonds judgment, the debate has intensified on finding a transparent, equitable, and legal mechanism for political funding. Future implications include: continued calls for greater transparency in electoral trusts, potential new legislative frameworks to regulate corporate and individual donations, and ongoing judicial scrutiny into the fairness of election financing. The increasing cost of elections also means that the role of money in politics is likely to remain a dominant theme, influencing everything from candidate selection to policy formulation, potentially leading to governance that is more responsive to big donors than to the general public. This financial muscle also allows parties to invest heavily in data analytics, social media campaigns, and ground-level outreach, further cementing their electoral advantage and making it harder for nascent parties or those with limited resources to compete effectively.

This issue is not merely about money; it's about the integrity of India's democratic process and the trust citizens place in their elected representatives. A healthy democracy requires a level playing field, where ideas and public service, rather than financial might, are the primary determinants of electoral success.