The Supreme Court Bar Association refutes claims of authorizing its President, Adish Aggarwala, to correspond with the President of India regarding the Electoral Bonds verdict.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) made a public announcement Yesterday to clarify that its President, Adish Aggarwala, did not have the association’s endorsement when he reached out to the President of India, Draupadi Murmu, regarding the enforcement of the electoral bonds verdict. The SCBA expressed strong disapproval of this action, labeling it as an ‘attempt to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court’ and stated that they ‘unequivocally condemn the same’. This statement was issued in light of a letter sent by the SCBA to President Murmu, coinciding with the State Bank of India‘s preparation to disclose electoral bond data.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has publicly disassociated itself from its president, Adish Aggarwala, stating that his letter to the President requesting a presidential reference on the electoral bonds case is an unacceptable effort to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.
In his controversial communication, SCBA President Adish C. Aggarwala appealed to President Murmu to consider a presidential reference for the Supreme Court’s judgment on electoral bonds, arguing that revealing such data could expose corporations to potential victimization. This concern was also shared by the All India Bar Association, led by Aggarwala, in a separate letter to the President. Aggarwala articulated,
“Disclosing such sensitive information, that too retrospectively, will result in a chilling effect in corporate donations and participation in the democratic process…The possibility of them being singled out by those parties that had received less contribution from them, and harassed cannot be ruled out if the names of corporates and their quantum of contributions to various parties are revealed. This will be reneging on the promise given to them while accepting their voluntary contributions.”
Both legal bodies implored President Murmu to invoke a presidential reference in the matter of electoral bonds, allowing for a complete reevaluation of the case. This procedure, as outlined in Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, enables the President to seek the Supreme Court’s guidance on questions of law or fact that may arise.
The context for these developments was set by the State Bank of India’s compliance with a Supreme Court directive, which mandated the bank to submit details regarding the purchasers of the now-invalidated electoral bonds and the political parties that benefited from them. This submission to the Election Commission was completed on Tuesday evening, adhering to the Supreme Court’s deadline that required the information to be disclosed by the end of business hours on March 12.
The SCBA’s decision to distance itself from Aggarwala underscores the gravity of the situation, as it implies a breach of trust between the association and its president. The condemnation of Aggarwala’s actions highlights the importance of upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary, especially within legal circles.
Furthermore, the SCBA’s statement leaves unanswered questions regarding Aggarwala’s intentions. Was the letter motivated by a desire for personal recognition or was there external pressure involved? These inquiries underscore the need for transparency and accountability within legal institutions, ensuring that actions taken by their representatives align with principles of justice and impartiality.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Electoral Bonds
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
