The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a Constitution Bench of five judges, a batch of petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds scheme.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which decided to refer it to a five-judge Bench in view of Article 145(4) of the Constitution, apart from the importance of the issue raised in the petitions.

The Apex Court said that the matter will be retained on the board on October 30.

The petitions challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017, which paved the way for the anonymous electoral bonds scheme. 

A three-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud had last week agreed to hear the pleas, which were filed in 2017, after the petitioners urged that the matter be heard before the upcoming general elections.

The Finance Act had introduced amendments in 2017 in the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Companies Act, the Income Tax Act, the Representation of Peoples Act and the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, to make way for the electoral bonds.

By virtue of the 2017 amendment made to Section 29C of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (RPA), a donor may buy an electoral bond at specified banks and branches using electronic modes of payment and after having completed the KYC (know your customer) requirements. 

However, political parties were not required to disclose the source of these bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bonds can be bought for any value, in multiples of Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 10 lakh or Rs 1 crore. 

The name of the donor will not be there in the bond. The bond will be valid for 15 days from the date of issue, within which it has to be encashed by the payee-political party. 

The face value of the bonds shall be counted as income by way of voluntary contributions received by an eligible political party, for the purpose of exemption from Income-tax under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), along with NGOs Common Cause and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the petitions challenged the scheme on the grounds that it was an ‘obscure funding system,’ which would remain ‘unchecked’ by any authority. 

As per the petitioners, amendments to the Companies Act 2013 would lead to ‘private corporate interests’ taking precedence over the needs and rights of people of the State in policy considerations.

The Supreme Court will hear on October 3, a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari, seeking registration of first information reports (FIR) against Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in 2020 during poll campaigning.

Expressing its displeasure over the third adjournment since it agreed to hear the matter, the Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal clearly told the Delhi Police on Monday that it would not grant any more adjournments.

In April, the top court of the country had issued notice and sought Delhi Police’s response to the special leave petition. It also gave additional time to the Delhi Police Commissioner to file a counter affidavit in response to the special leave petition. The Delhi Police last month sought adjournment by way of a letter, which was granted.

Today’s hearing was also adjourned at the request of the Delhi Police, despite the petitioners opposing the same.

The CPI (M) leaders had moved the Apex Court against the Delhi High Court verdict, which refused to set aside the trial court judgement rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against the two leaders from the ruling BJP.

The Supreme Court issued notice on Monday on a Special Leave Petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat seeking registration of an FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in 2020.

While issuing notice returnable in three weeks, the Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that prima facie, the stand of the Magistrate that a sanction was required to register FIR in the case, appeared to be incorrect. 

Earlier, a trial court order had rejected Karat’s plea seeking registration of FIRs against the BJP leaders.

The Apex Court noted that prima facie, the stand of the Magistrate that a sanction was required to register FIR in the case, appeared to be incorrect. 

Noting various speeches filed by Karat, the petition highlighted the speech delivered by Anurag Thakur on January 27, 2020 at a rally shouting the slogan, ‘Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maro saalon ko’. 

The plea further mentioned another speech made by Parvesh Verma dated January 27-28, 2020, while campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party and subsequently in an interview given to the media.

Representing Karat, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal contended that the Election Commission had taken action and barred them from campaigning for a certain amount of hours. 

The provocative speech using words such as ‘goli maro’ translated into real action after a person fired at the protesters within the next few days. 

As per Agarwal, the Delhi High Court had in a collateral proceeding, commented adversely on speeches:.

However, the Magistrate refused to order registration of FIR citing lack of sanction. He submitted that the judgment relied on by the Magistrate, which dealt with the need for sanction to register FIR, was in the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Pulling up the trial court, the Apex Court said that it completely erred in the verdict by saying that a sanction was not needed for an FIR. 

The top court of the country said three years have passed since the incident, but no FIR has been registered yet.

Raising objection over the Communist Party of India (Marxist) filing a petition in the Shaheen Bagh encroachment removal case, the Supreme Court on Monday said what was the point of political parties filing petitions in such cases.

A Bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao said, “The victim must come. Will see then.

The court then told the petitioner to approach the High Court.

“You should keep your point there,” observed the Bench.

A high-voltage drama unfolded during the anti-encroachment drive at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, as the visuals showed the residents, politicians and locals blocking the civic authorities’ bulldozers in the area from demolishing buildings.

Also Read: Gauhati High Court disposes of PIL seeking change in proposed National Highway 127B alignment

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress also joined the protest, giving it an absolute look of political issue. There were people who favoured this drive, saying that ‘few areas were illegally captured,’ so the anti-encroachment drive was much-needed.

After being rebuked by the Apex Court, the CPI (M) withdrew the petition.

The building that was about to be razed was in close proximity to the Popular Front of India (PFI) office in Shaheen Bagh.

Also Read: Sedition: Centre says PM Modi has directed re-examination of draconian colonial law

Supreme Court refuses to interfere into the plea seeking appropriate direction in connection with the case of demolition in Shaheen Bagh, asks parties to approach High Court