India

What Instructions Did The SC Give To SBI Regarding Electoral Bonds And What Did The CJI Say To The President Of The Bar Association? – Heated debate between veteran lawyers in SC regarding electoral bonds, SBI also reprimanded theinsiderinsight

The Supreme Court also refused to hear the petition requesting to disclose the details of electoral bonds sold from March 1, 2018 to April 11, 2019.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed State Bank of India (SBI) for the third time, asking it not to adopt a “selective” approach and to “fully disclose” all information related to the electoral bond scheme by March 21. Said to. The Supreme Court asked for disclosure of all information related to electoral bonds, including unique bond numbers. The unique bond number will reveal the political affiliation between the buyer and the recipient political party.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said there was “no doubt” that SBI would have to fully disclose all details of the bonds. The bench also includes Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra. The bench said that after receiving the information from SBI, the Election Commission should immediately upload it on its website.

Read also

Last Friday, the court had issued a 'show cause' notice to the country's largest bank for not disclosing the unique alpha-numeric numbers in compliance with its directions and had said that SBI will not disclose those numbers. Was 'duty bound'. The bench on Monday took note of the arguments of senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for SBI, that the bank has no objection in disclosing all the information about electoral bonds available with it. “In order to give full effect to the order and to avoid any dispute in future, the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI shall file an affidavit before 5 pm on Thursday (March 21) stating that SBI has He has disclosed all the information available with him regarding electoral bonds and has not hidden any information.

Petition of industrial bodies rejected
During the hearing, the court asked SBI to disclose all possible information related to the election bonds, including bond numbers. “We had asked SBI to disclose all the information, including electoral bond numbers,” the bench said orally during the hearing. SBI should not be selective in disclosing details.'' He said that the Supreme Court in its judgment in the electoral bond case had asked the bank to disclose all the details of the bonds and it should not wait for further orders in this regard. . The Supreme Court also refused to hear the unlisted petitions of industrial bodies, industry body ASSOCHAM and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in the electoral bond case. The industrial bodies had sought urgent hearing on their interim petition filed through senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi against disclosing the bond details.

“We will not allow this”
Salve told the bench that it should not appear that the bank was “toying” with the court as it had no problem in disclosing the details of the electoral bonds. In this case, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner non-profit organization (NGO), claimed that the major political parties have not given the details of donors, only a few parties have. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that these sponsored NGOs were “manipulating the data”. The Supreme Court also refused to consider a letter by senior advocate Adesh C Agarwal, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), seeking review of its decision on disclosing electoral bond details. The CJI said, “Apart from being a senior advocate, you are the President of SCBA. You know the process. You have written a letter regarding my autocognitive powers. What is the justification for mentioning this? These are all promotional things. We will not allow this.'' The CJI told Aggarwal, ''Don't force me to say anything else.''

Solicitor General kept distance
Solicitor General Mehta said on behalf of the Central Government, “I completely distance myself from whatever Aggarwal has written.” There is no need for this at all.'' He also said that after the Supreme Court's decision on electoral bonds, ''baseless statements have started not only at the government level but also at other levels. Mehta said people appearing in the court have started giving interviews to the press, “deliberately embarrassing” the court and this has created an atmosphere of inequality. He also mentioned social media posts and said that these were done with the aim of embarrassing him. He said that the Center says that they want to stop black money.

“We decide according to the Constitution”
On this, CJI Chandrachud said, “Solicitor, we are only concerned about the implementation of the instructions. As judges, we take decisions as per the Constitution. We work as per the law. Comments are also made on us on social media and in the press.'' The Supreme Court also refused to hear the petition requesting to disclose the details of electoral bonds sold from March 1, 2018 to April 11, 2019.

Related Posts

1 of 267