New Delhi, Mar 19 (Repesentative) Heated arguments were witnessed during the hearing of the Electoral Bonds issue in the Supreme Court on Monday. Senior Advocate Mathews Nedumpara hailing from Kerala started pressing for an early hearing of his plea. Nedumpara intervened in the Electoral Bond hearing going on in the Court. insisting plea be heard urgently and the judgement be reconsidered. A five-Judge Constitutional Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud refused to hear Nedumpara’s plea saying if he wants his petition to be heard he should follow the proper procedure of filing an urgent hearing request through an email. The CJI reprimanded SCBA President Adish Aggarwala and Advocate Mathews Nedumpara for their interference in the case. Senior Counsel Nedumpara kept insisting that he be allowed to speak. “Do not shout at me!” CJI DY Chandrachud said to Nedumpara “You are obstructing the process of administration of justice!” Justice BR Gavai said. Reprimanding Aggarwala who had submitted a letter to the bench to reconsider its judgement passed on the Electoral Bonds issue, CJI said “Mr Aggarwala, apart from being a senior counsel, you are the President of the SCBA. You have already written to me. This is all publicity-oriented and we will not permit it. Please keep it at that, otherwise I will have to say something more which might be distasteful”. Aggarwala, appearing through the online mode, said he has written to the CJI to take suo moto cognisance of it and reconsider the judgement on the Electoral Bonds. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for SBI argued at length and saidSBI will give every particular detail of the Electoral Bond as asked by the Supreme Court in its order.
The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the intention of the government in introducing the Electoral Bonds Scheme was not to keep any secret but it only wanted black money to come out in the open domain. The SG said that the Court’s order also aims to ensure the voter knows what funds are being given to political parties and by whom, but expressed fears that the judgement will become fodder for the “PIL filing industry”. The SG said, “The way your judgement is playing off..Something is playing that neither the government intended nor the Court intended”. When Advocate Prashant Bhushan, started arguing that the figures of donors and recipients mismatch, the Solicitor General said, “ Enough of assistance by these “public-spirited citizens”. Prashant Bhushan said I am saying that there is a mismatch between the numbers given by the SBI and ECI data. To this, the CJI clarified that after the constitution bench passed an interim order on April 12, 2019, if the Court finds this law unconstitutional all parties will have to disclose the details of the sale purchase, and donation of Electoral Bonds. This date – April 12, 2019, then becomes the cut-off date, CJI said. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra were hearing the arguments on various petitions related to the order passed by the bench on Electoral bonds. The CII, FICCI, and ASSOCHAM also moved the Supreme Court this morning, seeking an urgent hearing, which was refused by the bench. Industry bodies argued that they are comfortable with two separate lists of donors and recipients but not comfortable with the disclosure of the alphanumeric serial number
Appearing for CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatagi claimed to have moved the Apex Court only after the court issued notice to SBI to declare the serial number. The case pertains to the Supreme Court order passed on February 15, 2024 by which it scrapped the Electoral Bonds scheme. The Supreme Court had declared the issuance of electoral bonds case as unlawful and directed the SBI to stop the issuance of the Electoral bonds forthwith. The Apex Court had directed the SBI to disclose details of the political parties that received contributions through electoral bonds. These details were to be published by the Election Commission on its website by March 13, 2024, The SBI, however, could not furnish the details within the stipulated time and asked extension till June 30 to furnish the said details. The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud dismissed the bank’s application for an extension of time and directed that “The State Bank of India through its chairperson and managing director shall file an affidavit on compliance of its order and furnish details of Electoral Bonds by March 12, 2024, to the Election Commission. The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to compile this information and publish it on their website by 5 PM on March 15, 2024. After the March 15 order, the SBI still failed to give the entire details of the Bonds purchased. The Supreme Court today again categorically stated that the State Bank of India has to disclose the unique alphanumeric numbers associated with Electoral Bonds, which will help in matching the purchasers of the bonds with the political parties which redeemed them. The Apex Court had struck down the anonymous electoral bonds scheme on the ground that it infringed upon the fundamental right of a voter under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to know the source of political funding, meaningful compliance with the judgment would require publishing all details which will help the voters to enjoy such right.