Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas for Electoral Bond Data Disclosure

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied the requests of two non-governmental organizations to reveal information regarding the Rs 4,000 crore worth of electoral bonds that were exchanged between March 1, 2018, and April 11, 2019.

It added that when it first issued an interim order over five years ago ordering the SBI to disclose the bond details, it did so "consciously" and set April 12, 2019 as the deadline.

The industry chambers Ficci and Assocham also had their appeals denied by the five-judge constitution bench. They contended that the disclosures would violate the "confidentiality" theory pertaining to the bond trading.

Orally addressing the Citizens Rights Trust and attorney Prashant Bhushan, who was representing the primary petitioner, the Association for Democratic Reforms, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated, "In our judgment we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be the date of interim order."

We chose that date, April 12, 2019, because we believed that everyone was placed on notice as soon as an interim injunction was issued. Should we need to revert to a previous timeframe, the ruling will be reviewed.

The ruling of the supreme court of February 15, 2024, mandating the disclosures, pertains to electoral bonds issued after to April 12, 2019.

The relief requested in the Miscellaneous Application for the purpose of predating the disclosure point would result in a significant alteration of the ruling. It cannot therefore be addressed in a Miscellaneous Application. As a result, the court declared that the Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Senior attorney Mukul Rohatgi had earlier informed the court that Ficci and Assocham have submitted motions contesting the directive to disclose the electoral bond numbers, which are used to associate certain donors with particular political parties.

He emphasized that prior to the February 15 order being granted, the corporate bodies that purchased the bonds had not been consulted.

"Mr. Rohatgi... Judge Chandrachud said, "with effect from April 12, 2019, we directed the collection of details, so you were put on notice," meaning that the industry bodies were not allowed to approach the court at this late date in a case that had been going on for five years.

Mumbai-based lawyer Mathews Nedumpura, who was representing several interveners, expressed dissatisfaction at the court's decision to issue its February 15 ruling without first hearing from the general public. The bench threatened to take him to contempt when he continued.

"Everyone was aware that these procedures were underway. You arrived here following the delivery of the verdict. We're unable to hear you right now," the bench said.

Industry response

Retrospective action lowered business confidence among Indian and international investors, according to ficci insiders who spoke with this publication. They also said that ease of doing business was a crucial component of India's competitiveness globally. A source stated, "This served as the foundation for our application."

Industry sources stated that while they were okay with the two distinct lists of donor and beneficiary data that have been made public thus far, they were uncomfortable with the alphanumeric serial numbers of the bonds being made public.

Industry worries that India Inc. may face political backlash as a result of the revelation of alphanumeric data.

Bar owner Rap

Adish C. Aggarwala, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, irritated the bench when he attempted to bring up a letter he had sent to Justice Chandrachud asking for a "suo motu" review of the ruling from February 15.

"Mr. Adish Aggarwala, you are the president of SCBA in addition to being a senior lawyer. You are familiar with the process. In a letter, you have requested that I exercise my suo motu authority. According to Justice Chandrachud, you have no locus.

"All of these are geared toward publicity. We're not going to allow that. If you don't stop there, I'll have to say something disgusting.

Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general, aimed to refute any notion that the government was supporting the request for a reexamination of the ruling. He claimed social media and non-governmental organizations were attempting to sway judicial decisions.

"Our shoulders are broad enough to (withstand) social media commentary," the bench said.

Extra information provided by our business bureau

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Press Time staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.