SC Asks SBI To Disclose All Electoral Bonds Data, Refuses To Hear Plea By FICCI, ASSOCHAM Seeking Deferment
The Supreme Court on Monday heard the State Bank Of India's (SBI) reply to its notice seeking its response on why the bank did not disclosed the alpha numeric numbers.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard the State Bank Of India's (SBI) reply to its notice seeking its response on why the bank did not disclose the alpha numeric numbers. The top court directed SBI to disclose all details of electoral bonds purchased and redeemed after the April 2019 interim order by the top court. It further asked SBI to file a compliance affidavit by Thursday.
A five-judge constitution bench was again constituted to hear the case pertaining to complete disclosure of details of Electoral Bonds by SBI.
"There is no manner of doubt that SBI is required to give complete disclosure. This includes alpha-numeric numbers and serial numbers of the bonds purchased, " the bench said in its order.
The bench further directed the SBI Chairman to file a compliance affidavit by 5 PM On Thursday stating that SBI has disclosed all details. The ECI shall upload details on communication by SBI.
CJI DY Chandrachud said that SBI's attitude seems to be "you tell us what to disclose, we will disclose. That does not seem to be fair."
"We will issue another order clarifying that SBI has to disclose all details on electoral bonds...When we say all details, it includes all conceivable data." the CJI remarked.
CJI further said that we want all information related to the electoral bonds to be disclosed which is in your possession.
SC Refuses CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM's Plea To Defer Disclosure Of Serial Numbers Of Electoral Bonds
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi orally mentioned FICCI, ASSOCHAM's application against disclosure of details. However, the CJI said the court has no such application on board and the counsel should follow procedure.
Rohatgi appealed that kindly defer the issue of grant of numbers. Rohatgi pressed his application on behalf of industrialists, questioning how the information can be asked to be disclosed when there was a guarantee of anonymity.
Industry bodies have contended that they are comfortable with two separate lists of donors and recipients but not comfortable with disclosure of alphanumeric serial number.
The CJI then replied, "Mr Rohatgi, there is only one answer. With effect from April 12, 2019, we directed the collection of details. Everyone was put on notice at the time. This is why we did not ask for the disclosure of the bonds sold prior to this interim order date April 2019. This was a conscious choice by this constitutional bench."
"You have come here after the judgment is delivered, we can't hear you right now," the top court told Rohatgi, the lawyer appearing for FICCI, ASSOCHAM.
Justice Gavai then told Rohatgi that the whole world knew this proceeding was going on. The top court declined Rohatgi's request to hear the application filed by FICCI, ASSOCHAM.
The court also warned of contempt notice to Advocate Mathews Nedumpara who kept pressing for the issue.
"Do not shout at me!" the CJI DY Chandrachud told Nedumpara.
"You are obstructing in the process of administration of justice!" Justice BR Gavai warned him of contempt action.
SC Refuses To Pass Order To Disclose Data From 2018 to April 2019
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for ADR told the top court that the ECI has disclosed the sealed covers submitted by political parties. Some of the smaller parties have disclosed the donors but not all have done it.
The top court however, said that we need not go into that at all. "Recently in an interview, I was asked about the criticism of a judgment. I need not tell which judgment. Once the judgment is declared, it is a property of the nation." the CJI remarked
Bhushan again pressed that only some smaller parties have disclosed the donors..Some political parties have disclosed, some haven't. One party which is in power in a state has said someone left the bonds at the door.
At this point, a visibly agitated Solicitor General Tuishar Mehta remarked that Mr.Bhushan is not addressing your lordships, he is addressing outside. So that it can come in the media.
He also interjected Bhushan's contentions about mismatch in data provided by SBI.
SG Mehta said, "Enough of assistance by this public spirited person. He is gathering the details for a future public interest litigation."
The CJI however said that if we have to go back to an earlier date, it will become review of the judgment.
The top court also dismissed an application filed seeking disclosure of data From 2018 to April 2019, before the court passed an interim order to maintain data on electoral bonds in sealed cover.
"Relief sought in a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for predating the disclosure will amount to a substantive modification of the judgment, which can't be done in a MA. The MA is dismissed as non maintainable," the bench said while passing the order.
SG Mehta appearing on behalf of Centre also disassociated himself from a letter written by SCBA chairman seeking review of the top court's judgment.
SG Mehta also highlighted the challenges posed by social media commentary on the top court's judgment. He expressed concerns about the misuse of data and the potential for misinformation – “How this court's judgment is playing out is something which it must be informed of…Now the witch-hunting has started at some other level, not at the government-level. " He raised concerns over PILs being filed against the companies for donating to political parties.
However, the CJI told SG Mehta that the top court was prepared to handle social media commentary, stating, “As an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary. Our intent was disclosure…We are governed by a rule of law.”
Top Headlines
Trending News
