The State Bank of India (SBI) refused to disclose legal fees paid to Senior Advocate Harish Salve in the Electoral Bond Case, citing RTI Act sections 8(1)(e) and (j). The refusal led to concerns about transparency and accountability in financial transactions linked to significant legal matters. Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench instructed SBI to reveal all details related to Electoral Bonds, including purchasers’ names and purchase dates, due to concerns about transparency and accountability.
“If not for giving representation to Scheduled Castes, I would have been elevated maybe two years later,” : Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai emphasized the role of reservation and affirmative action in elevating marginalized individuals in India’s government. He credited his own advancement to these principles and highlighted the importance of diversity and inclusion in the judiciary. Justice Gavai also addressed challenges such as media manipulation and emphasized the CJI’s duty to provide equal leadership.
On Tuesday (26th March): Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai highlighted the integral relationship between the right to free speech and the right to information, especially in the context of elections and the Electoral Bonds case. Emphasizing the evolution from colonialism to democracy, he reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and encouraging citizen participation.
The Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of the electoral bonds scheme highlights the balance between privacy and transparency in political funding. The decision emphasizes the crucial role of judicial review in safeguarding fundamental rights and underscores the significance of public access to information about political contributions. This ruling signifies the evolving nature of law and democracy.
The Delhi High Court clarified that the CBI must disclose information related to corruption and human rights violations under the RTI Act, rejecting blanket exemptions. This reaffirms the importance of transparency and accountability, ensuring that exemptions do not undermine the Act’s purpose. The ruling emphasizes the balance between confidentiality in investigations and the public’s right to information.