The President of the Supreme Court Bar Association has requested the President, Droupadi Murmu, requesting that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Electoral Bonds case not be enforced. The letter suggests seeking a presidential reference, and until the reference is heard, the judgment should not be implemented.
Today (February 12), the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association has addressed a letter to the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, requesting that the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Electoral Bonds case be temporarily suspended by seeking a presidential reference. Furthermore, the letter suggests that the implementation of the judgment should be deferred until after the presidential reference is considered.
Also Read- Supreme Court’s Verdict On Electoral Bonds Hits SBI Shares: A Detailed Analysis (lawchakra.in)
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 11) dismissed the State Bank of India’s (SBI) plea for an extension to disclose details related to the Electoral Bonds Scheme. This decision has had immediate repercussions on the market, notably affecting SBI’s share prices.
- Immediate Disclosure Required: The Supreme Court has set strict deadlines for SBI, requiring the bank to provide detailed information by March 12 and the Election Commission to publish these details by March 15.
- Contempt Warning: The court has issued a stern warning to SBI, indicating that contempt proceedings could be initiated if the bank fails to comply with the order within the specified timeline.
- Rejection of SBI’s Data Challenge: The Supreme Court dismissed SBI’s argument regarding the voluminous nature of the data, involving over 22,217 bonds and potentially 44,000 data sets, stating that the information sought is readily available.
- Anonymity Preserved: While the court has mandated the disclosure of bond details, it has allowed for the anonymity of donors, not requiring a direct link between donors and political parties to be established in the disclosed information.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, known for his legal activism, described the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant an extension to the SBI as a “tough stand.” The apex court’s decision came after the SBI sought additional time until June 30 to disclose details about the donors of electoral bonds and the political parties that have redeemed them. Bhushan highlighted the court’s rationale, stating:
“The Supreme Court decisively denies the State Bank of India’s request for an extension until June 30 to reveal details about electoral bond donors and redeeming parties. Highlighting the availability of the required data in the SBI’s affidavit, the court mandates immediate submission of donor and redemption details, rejecting the application for additional time.”
The reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision has been varied, with political figures weighing in on the matter. Former Rajasthan Chief Minister and Congress leader Ashok Gehlot expressed his approval of the court’s directive, emphasizing the importance of the decision for judicial integrity and transparency. Gehlot remarked:
“The Supreme Court has done the right thing by asking (SBI) to disclose details of electoral bonds by tomorrow. I am sure that Supreme Court will understand the seriousness of the matter and give a verdict that will teach a lesson to those who tried to befool the court.”