A plea has been filed Today (April 15th) in the Supreme Court seeking review of its February 15 verdict, which had scrapped the government’s electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A petition has been presented before the Supreme Court requesting a reevaluation of its decision from February 15, which led to the annulment of the electoral bonds scheme introduced by the Modi administration. This scheme was initially set up to allow for anonymous funding to political parties.
The request for review, submitted by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, challenges the Court’s previous ruling on the grounds that it essentially overstepped its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate authority over the Parliament. This action, according to the plea, interfered with matters strictly within the legislative and executive domains.
Nedumpara’s review plea highlights several oversight by the Court in its judgment. It points out that the Court did not consider whether the issue was justiciable since the petitioners did not demonstrate a specific legal injury exclusive to them, raising the question of the suitability of treating their petition like a private litigation seeking to enforce individual rights. Furthermore, the plea contends,
“The court failed to notice that even assuming the issue is justiciable, the petitioners therein having not claimed any specific legal injury exclusive to them, their petition could not have been decided as if a private litigation for the enforcement of rights which are specific and exclusive to them.”
Moreover, the plea argues that public opinion on the electoral bonds scheme might be deeply divided, with a significant portion of the population possibly in favor, given the scheme was established by their elected officials. It suggests that the public, similar to the petitioners of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL)/writ petition, deserves a chance to be heard. Nedumpara emphasizes,
“The court failed to notice that the public opinion could be sharply divided and the majority of the people of this country could probably be in support of the scheme, brought into existence by their elected representatives and that they too have a right to be heard, as much as the PIL/writ petitioners.”
The review plea further criticizes the Court for not converting the proceedings into representative ones, should it decide to delve into legislative policy matters, thereby underscoring a duty to listen to the wider public opinion.
“The court failed to notice that, if at all it is venturing into the forbidden domain of adjudicating upon a matter of legislative policy, they have a duty to hear the public at large and that the proceedings ought to be converted into representative proceedings…,”
-the document states.
In striking down the 2018 electoral bond scheme, the Supreme Court had previously determined that it infringed upon the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression and to information.
This landmark decision was delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, which also mandated the State Bank of India to disclose the details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to the present day to the Election Commission. This information was ordered to be published on the Commission’s official website by a set deadline.
Critically, the electoral bonds scheme was introduced on January 2, 2018, by the government as a means to replace cash donations to political parties, aiming to enhance the transparency of political funding.
However, the Supreme Court had pointed out the potential for ruling parties to coerce contributions through this scheme and refuted the Centre’s argument that the scheme ensured donor confidentiality, likening it to a secret ballot, as “erroneous”.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Electoral Bonds
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
