Bar Leader Urges CJI For Review Of Electoral Bonds Verdict

Bar leader Adish Aggarwala writes to CJI D Y Chandrachud, seeking suo motu review of Supreme Court’s verdict on electoral bonds.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Bar Leader Urges CJI for Review of Electoral Bonds Verdict

NEW DELHI: Adish C Aggarwala, reached out to the Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, with a request for a suo motu re-evaluation of a specific aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding electoral bonds. This legal directive, initially issued by the Supreme Court, mandated the Election Commission to disclose information furnished by the State Bank of India on its official portal, information that pertains to electoral bonds.

This appeal was made against the backdrop of a session held Today (March 15th), where a five-judge Constitutional bench led by the Chief Justice himself, was convened to address a petition from the Election Commission. The petition sought adjustments to the key segment of the court’s decision dated March 11 concerning electoral bonds. The bench instructed Aggarwala to resubmit the matter on March 18 for further discussion.

Adish C Aggarwala, who holds prestigious positions as the president of both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the All India Bar Association (AIBA), articulated his concerns in a personal capacity through a letter dated March 14 to the Chief Justice.

The context of Aggarwala’s request lies in a groundbreaking judgment handed down on February 15, wherein a five-judge Constitutional bench, led by the Chief Justice, annulled the government’s electoral bonds scheme. The scheme, criticized for enabling anonymous political contributions, was declared “unconstitutional”. The court’s mandate required the Election Commission to unveil details including the identities of the donors, the sums donated, and the beneficiaries by March 13.

The Supreme Court ordered the discontinuation of this contentious scheme and directed the State Bank of India—the designated financial authority under this scheme—to furnish the details of electoral bonds sold from April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission by March 6.

Aggarwala’s appeal for a review was focused on the court’s direction which obligates the Election Commission to publish the data provided by the SBI on its official website by March 13.

In his plea, Aggarwala expressed his endorsement of the Supreme Court’s decision, appreciating the nullification of the electoral bonds scheme, highlighting it as a necessary measure given the reasons outlined in the judgment. However, he expressed reservations regarding one specific instruction. He stated,

“I totally welcome the decision passed by the five-judges bench of Supreme Court, as invalidating the said scheme was much required, due to the reasons as have been enumerated in the judgment, except the direction that the ECI shall publish the information shared by the SBI on its official website within one week of the receipt of the information, that is, by 13 March, 2024 passed in the judgment.”

He further elaborated on the potential negative repercussions of such transparency, noting,

“the apex court verdict directing ‘abrupt disclosures of identity of corporate donors, the amount of donation and donee political party will have an adverse impact on the said corporate donor'”.

This reflection underscores the complexities involved in the disclosure of political donations, hinting at the potential deterrent effect on corporate contributors due to the sudden exposure of their political affiliations and contributions.

Aggarwala said revealing the names of corporate donors and amount of donation would render the corporates vulnerable for victimisation.

“I, therefore humbly request your lordship to subject the February 15, 2024 verdict… to suo motu review of its direction: …The ECI shall publish the information shared by the SBI on its official website within one week of the receipt of the information, that is, by 13 March, 2024 made in the judgment,”
-he said in his March 14 letter.

“I further humbly clarify that I am making this prayer for suo motu review of judgment dated February 15, 2024 is not on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association but it is in my individual capacity being the Chairman of All India Bar Association, President of Supreme Court Bar Association and former Vice-Chairman of Bar Council of India,”
-he said.

On March 12, Aggarwala had written to President Droupadi Murmu urging her to seek presidential reference of the apex court judgement in the electoral bonds scheme case and not to give effect to it unless the top court has reheard the matter.

Article 143 of the Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and empowers the President of India to consult the top court. If it appears to the president that a question of law or fact has arisen, or can arise in future which is of public importance and it is beneficial to obtain the opinion of the top court, the president may refer the question for its consideration.

Later, the SCBA had condemned the views expressed by its president in his letter to President Droupadi Murmu urging her to seek presidential reference of the apex court judgement in the electoral bonds scheme case.

Distancing itself from Aggarwala’s views, the executive committee of the bar body, in its resolution issued on March 12, had made it clear that the members of the panel neither authorised the SCBA president to write the letter nor support the views expressed in the communication.

The top court had on March 11 ordered the SBI to disclose the details of the electoral bonds encashed by political parties to the EC by the close of business hours on March 12.

While dismissing the SBI’s plea seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details, it had also directed the EC to publish the information shared by the bank on its official website by 5 pm. on March 15.

The EC put up on its website the data on electoral bonds on Thursday, a day before the deadline.