Idea Of India Summit: 'Where Electoral Bonds Verdict By SC Fell Short' — Senior Lawyers Discuss

Senior Supreme Court Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Senior Delhi High Court Advocate Saurabh Kirpal speak on the Electoral Bonds Judgement, Article 370 verdict and Umar Khalid's bail plea

Speaking on judicial intervention Kirpal said that since 1970, the Indian judiciary has been interventionist

At the APB Network's third Idea Of India Summit, Legal luminaries, Senior Supreme Court Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Senior Delhi High Court Advocate Saurabh Kirpal spoke at length on the recent electoral bonds verdict by the Supreme Court.

When asked how he would rate the recent Electoral Bonds verdict of the Supreme Court, Sankaranarayanan said that he would give 8.5 points out of 10 to the verdict. He explained that even though the top court has struck down the scheme as unconstitutional, it has not done anything about the huge sums of funds encashed by the political parties over the years, especially by the ruling BJP. 

"This verdict is 8.5 out of 10 because it lets the parties keep the funds it obtained from Electoral Bonds. It would have been a 10/10 if it asked the BJP and other parties to return the money."

However, Gaurav Kirpal gave the verdict a 9 out of 10 and said it is a good judgment. The court today has said that an average citizen has the right to know about any quid-pro-quo if it happens. If it had come two years earlier, it would have been a 9.5.

Watch APB Network's third Idea Of India Summit 

Speaking on judicial intervention Kirpal said that since 1970, the Indian judiciary has been interventionist. "Infact, in the last few years, the court has been a little less interventionist. So, when there are notable exceptions, they make headlines. Upholding PMLA was hardly an interventionist action by the top court...The role is to protect fundamental rights of the citizens."

While speaking on the question of timings of judgements by courts, Sankaranarayanan said that saying that the court is playing ball with the government is unfair and not factually correct. He said that as a lawyer, he gets to observe the nuances of the arguments in courts.

"He went on to explain that the Supreme Court alone disposes of nearly 1000 cases every Monday and Friday...Nobody discusses those cases. They discuss what the media covers." 

Sankarayana who was among the lawyers who handled the case against abrogation of Article 370 shared from his personal experience and said, it is the art of advocacy and in the particular litigation strategy that determines the verdict.

"Our strategy was terrible in the Kashmir case. Counsels were underprepared and giving stupid answers to the court," he said.

He further added that the next day people can read news and say it was bound to happen, it's a left vs right thing, etc, But in reality it is the art of advocacy and how well you prepare that decides who will win the case. 

He said if the counsels were not prepared well in the Electoral Bonds case, the verdict could have been different.

"So, just to reduce it to politics and saying they are 'playing ball with the government' is not right." 

He also cited the example of Umar Khalid's bail plea and said it was his lawyers who allowed the case to go on.

"Umar Khalid's bail was pending by the court for three years because his lawyers allowed to do so. You can't blame the court for everything. Bail SLPs in SC are disposed of between 2-3 months. But if you keep seeking adjournment and then withdraw the plea after three years..."