Association of Democratic Reforms – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com Your legal news destination! Thu, 07 Mar 2024 10:28:11 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.4 https://d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net/IL/uploads/2020/12/16123527/cropped-IL_Logo-1-32x32.jpg Association of Democratic Reforms – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com 32 32 183211854 Electoral bonds: ADR files contempt petition in Supreme Court over SBI’s non-disclosure, hearing likely on March 11 https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/electoral-bond-buyers-details-sbi/ Thu, 07 Mar 2024 07:08:31 +0000 https://www.indialegallive.com/?p=333341 The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged non-compliance with the top court’s order to disclose details of electoral bonds. Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea on Thursday and sought an urgent hearing.  Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned […]]]>

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged non-compliance with the top court’s order to disclose details of electoral bonds. Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea on Thursday and sought an urgent hearing. 

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the contempt petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing. He said that the SBI has lodged an application seeking an extension of time till June 30 to provide the information, which is likely to be listed on Monday. The Senior Advocate requested that the contempt petition be also listed along with the SBI’s application.

The Chief Justice of India told Prashant Bhushan to send an email request with the details of the application number. The contempt petition lodged in the Supreme Court accuses the SBI of deliberate defiance and seeks initiation of contempt proceedings. 

The ADR submitted that SBI, the issuing bank of electoral bonds, has failed to furnish important details regarding the bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) within the stipulated time frame set by the apex court. The plea, filed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s verdict on February 15, highlights the urgency of disclosing information related to electoral bonds.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had directed the SBI to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India by March 6. Nonetheless, days before the deadline, the bank filed an application seeking an extension till June 30, mentioning the complexity of decoding and compiling data from the sale of these bonds.

The contempt petition challenges SBI’s extension request, terming it as mala fide and an attempt to thwart transparency efforts before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. It also argued that the State Bank of India possesses the necessary infrastructure to swiftly compile and disclose information on electoral bonds. As per ADR, the SBI’s IT system, designed for managing electoral bonds, is already in place and can easily generate reports based on the unique numbers assigned to each bond.

The plea also raised questions about the banks’ claimed difficulties in compiling data, pointing out that it has records of the unique numbers allotted to each electoral bond and the Know Your Customer (KYC) details of purchasers. Furthermore, it also noted that SBI has a vast network of branches and a well-functioning IT system, making the task of compiling data for approximately 22,217 electoral bonds straightforward.

Mentioning the significance of transparency in political financing, ADR contended that voters have a fundamental right to know about the substantial sums of money contributed to political parties through electoral bonds. It pointed out that the lack of transparency goes against the essence of participatory democracy enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

]]>
333341
Image Takes a Beating https://www.indialegallive.com/column-news/image-takes-a-beating/ Tue, 08 Feb 2022 05:10:43 +0000 https://www.indialegallive.com/?p=252355 supreme court closeBy Prof Yogesh Pratap Singh The Supreme Court of India is looked at as the upholder of the rights of citizens, and to a great extent, it has delivered on that trust. The Court has done more good for the general public than most other wings of the State. It has safeguarded the rights of […]]]> supreme court close

By Prof Yogesh Pratap Singh

The Supreme Court of India is looked at as the upholder of the rights of citizens, and to a great extent, it has delivered on that trust. The Court has done more good for the general public than most other wings of the State. It has safeguarded the rights of citizens from actions of the public as well as private entities. This has resulted in people also reciprocating with love and respect for the Court. However, this seems to be changing slowly.

With the advent of the internet and the ease of access of information in an age where every small mistake is amplified, the mysticism of the top court has become diluted. From infighting (circa the four judges’ press conference) to accusations against successive chief justices of favouring the government, every decision of the Court has been given a political tint and is being analysed and criticised as pro-government. The image of the Supreme Court has taken a beating.

While there has been no proof that certain verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court have been influenced by the government, the fact is that several crucial ones have been favourable to the government and caused anxiety amongst large sections of the population. There have been quite a few cases concerning the actions of the central government which the apex court has decided to postpone. The Court refuses to hear constitutional challenges to far-reaching State action, sometimes for years.

A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre found that a total of 587 cases are pending before Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court and 35 (out of these total cases) are concerning vital issues. Post­ponement of these cases has unequivocally benefitted the government.

The demonetisation policy introduced by the government in November 2016 caused immense hardship to various sections of the population, but the apex court refused to stay the notification despite the fact that it raised substantial legal issues. One was that the decision was single-handedly taken by the central government without involving the RBI Board. The Court, though, agreed to examine the constitutionality and legality of the governmental action, but never gave this issue an effective hearing.

In the Finance Act 2017, the government introduced a new system of electoral funding, i.e., electoral bonds. The scheme does not require political parties to mention the names and addresses of those contributing by way of electoral bonds in their contribution reports filed with the Election Commission of India annually.

Data collected by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) suggests that between 2017-18 and 2018-19, political parties received a total of Rs 2,760.20 crore from electoral bonds and a massive 60.17% (Rs 1,660.89 crore) of this was received by the ruling political party, the BJP. Political parties that had remained inactive over a prolonged period and did not take part in any election also received donations through electoral bonds. The scheme was challenged in 2018 by ADR immediately after it was brought into force. The contentions were manifold: electoral bonds not only infringe a citizen’s fundamental “Right to Know”, but bizarrely, make the political class unanswerable and unaccountable by withholding vital public information.

While electoral bonds provide no details to the citizens, the government of the day can access donor details by retrieving data from the State Bank of India. Hence, it is against the very spirit of democracy and rule of law. Even the Election Commission, which has been questioned for taking a pro-governmental stand in recent times, had raised serious concerns that “any donation received by a political party through an electoral bond” has been taken out of the ambit of reporting and also it can never be determined whether the political party has taken any donation from government companies and foreign sources in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, it is a regressive step taken by the government. It’s now four years and despite many assembly and a general election being conducted, the Supreme Court still keeps this issue under the purview of the doctrine of postponement and allows the case to remain dormant.

The Court also refrained from examining legal and constitutional challenges posed to the centre’s decision on Article 370 that changed the constitutional status of J&K and several other decisions like the internet shutdown in the Valley. Quite surprisingly, it did not even entertain the habeas corpus petitions which concerned the life and liberty of the people of the state. On the contrary, the Court pointed out that the petitions suffered from serious defects and had no meaning. The Court even decided to give the government more time to review the situation after the authorities said that the restrictions would be lessened soon. There was no justification for the Supreme Court to postpone matters that involved a person’s liberty. 

The constitutional validity challenge of Aadhaar was kept pending for six years, and by the time it was heard, the government effectively offered the Court a fait accompli. Similarly, the challenge to economically weaker sections reservation (Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India), CAA/NRC issue (Indian Union Muslim League vs Union of India & Assam Public Works vs Union of India), seeking a more transparent and accountable system of appointment of Election Commissioners (Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary), the challenge to three farm laws (Rakesh Vaishnav & Ors vs Union of India & Ors.), which finally the government decided to withdraw, are some other crucial cases pending before the Supreme Court for a considerable period of time.

Keeping in mind the sensitive nature of these cases, timely adjudication was desirable, but little to no developments were seen in these cases on the judicial front. As a result, these cases have been stuck in limbo, benefitting the central government.

Impartial observers of the Supreme Court are drawing their own conclusions not only about the independence of the judiciary but also about the integrity of the judges. The time has come for the judiciary to sit down and introspect and see what can be done to revive the faith of the people.

—The writer is Professor of Law & Registrar, National Law University, Odisha

]]>
252355