The Supreme Court Today (March 18th), then directed SBI to unveil all pertinent information regarding electoral bonds, including specifics of the alphanumeric codes associated with these bonds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today dismissed the Central government‘s concerns regarding the alleged misuse of its verdict invalidating the Electoral Bonds scheme by various individuals on social media.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conveyed to a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra that there were distortions in the statistics regarding the disclosure of electoral bonds purchased by political parties. He emphasized that these distortions were being used to serve a particular agenda, leading to the Court being portrayed in an unfavorable light.
“The ultimate aim was to curb black money and this Court must be aware of how this judgment is being played outside the court. Now the witch hunting has started at another level and not at the level of the Central government. Those appearing before the Court have begun giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the Court, and it is not a level playing field. There is a barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment, and now it is an open field. Now statistics can be twisted as people want. Based on the statistics, any kind of posts are being made,”
-SG Mehta stated.
However, the Court asserted that it is not concerned with how its judgments are being interpreted by third parties.
“In our capacity as judges, our focus remains steadfastly on upholding the rule of law and adhering to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Our court is dedicated to ensuring the governance of the rule of law within this polity. While judges may be subject to discussions on social media, we possess the resilience to withstand such scrutiny. Our primary objective is to enforce the directives outlined in paragraphs b and c of the judgment,”
-responded CJI Chandrachud.
Subsequently, the Court proceeded to instruct the State Bank of India (SBI) to divulge all pertinent information regarding electoral bonds, including the details of the alphanumeric codes associated with these bonds.
“This Court had mandated the disclosure of information pertaining to the Electoral Bonds scheme to bring about a logical and comprehensive conclusion to the proceedings. Accordingly, operative directives were issued in paragraphs b and c of the judgment. Paragraph b necessitates the provision of details regarding Electoral Bond purchases from April 12, 2019, until the date of the judgment, encompassing information such as names and denominations. Paragraph c outlines instructions for political parties that received funding through electoral bonds, with SBI tasked to disclose specifics of each bond encashed by these parties, including the date of encashment. This indicates that SBI was obligated to disclose all relevant details concerning purchases and redemptions. The language used in the directives suggests that they are illustrative rather than exhaustive in terms of disclosure requirements. There is unequivocal clarity that SBI is mandated to disclose all information within its possession, including the details of electoral bond numbers or alphanumeric codes,”
-decreed the Bench.
During today’s proceedings, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing SBI, expressed concerns that the Supreme Court’s judgment was being exploited by the public interest litigation (PIL) industry.
“Your judgment is one of the leading judgments in voter rights, transparency, and recognizes the role of money in politics. But this judgment was not intended to spark a now dormant PIL industry that now files petitions indiscriminately. This should not serve as fodder for PILs for the next 10 years, and that was not the intention of the judgment,”
-Salve asserted.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan attempted to make submissions, Solicitor General Mehta objected.
“He has assisted enough. He is not addressing the court. He is addressing for the press for tomorrow’s papers,”
-Mehta remarked.
“Unfortunately, public interest litigations have become publicity interest litigations,”
-Justice Gavai remarked.
“This is a matter of great concern because verdicts are being used for hidden agendas,”
-Salve contended.
Bhushan then proposed that political parties should be mandated to disclose donor details.
“Major political parties have not disclosed donor details. Only some parties have provided them,”
-he argued.
However, the Court stated it cannot issue such a directive.
“No, Mr. Bhushan, this would constitute a substantive modification of the (February 15) judgment,”
-the CJI explained.
“We are not reviewing now,”
-Justice Gavai added.
“Once we direct what we are doing today, many issues will be resolved,”
-Justice Khanna remarked.
Bhushan then highlighted a discrepancy between the number of electoral bonds purchased and redeemed.
“There is a significant discrepancy between electoral bonds purchased and redeemed. It indicates redemption of 550 crore more…what is plausible is that some of these bonds were purchased before April 12, 2019, and redeemed after that,”
-he suggested.
“These sponsored NGOs are manipulating the figures and submitting them. Einstein had said that statistics are often used like how a drunken person uses a pole, more for support and not for illumination,”
-Mehta added.
Meanwhile, the Court emphasized that SBI should not selectively disclose details of electoral bonds.
“We had instructed all details to be disclosed by SBI, which includes electoral bond numbers as well. Let SBI not be selective in disclosure; do not await orders. We believe that SBI will be candid and fair to the court. We expect all information related to the electoral bonds to be disclosed, which is in your possession. As chairman of SBI, every piece of information on electoral bonds had to be disclosed,”
-the Court underscored.
The Court also raised specific inquiries about the relevance of the bond’s number.
“How does the redeeming branch match the electoral bond number to ensure that it is not a forged bond?”
-the Court questioned.
Eventually, the Court directed SBI to provide all such details, including bond numbers, to the Election Commission.
“We direct the SBI chairman to submit an affidavit by 5 pm on Thursday stating that no information has been withheld from disclosure in terms of the directions given in para 221,”
-the Court ordered.
The Court added that ECI should upload the details promptly once it receives the data from SBI.
On March 15, the Bench requested SBI’s input regarding the omission of electoral bond numbers, which are crucial for identifying the bond encasher and recipients.
On February 15, the Court invalidated the Electoral Bonds Scheme and directed SBI to furnish details of political parties that received contributions via such bonds from April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Supreme Court subsequently denied SBI’s plea for an extension on March 11 and mandated the provision of specific details for each electoral bond purchased:
- Name of the purchaser
- Denomination of the electoral bonds
- Details of each electoral bond redeemed by political parties, including the date of encashment.
Observing on March 15 that SBI had not disclosed electoral bond numbers, the Court proceeded to issue a notice to the bank.
The electoral bonds scheme permitted donors to contribute anonymously to a political party by purchasing bearer bonds from SBI.
It was introduced via the Finance Act, 2017, which amended three other statutes: the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Representation of People Act.
Numerous petitions were filed before the apex court challenging at least five amendments made to various statutes through the Finance Act, 2017, contending that they facilitated unlimited, unregulated funding of political parties.
Nearly seven years later, the apex court invalidated the scheme.
During the proceedings, the bench stated,
“We had asked all details to be disclosed by the SBI which includes electoral bond numbers as well. Let SBI not be selective in disclosure.”
CASE TITLE:
Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr vs Union of India Cabinet Secretary and ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Electoral bonds
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
