The Supreme Court’s hearing on the electoral bonds case took a dramatic turn on Monday, as Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud engaged in a heated argument with Advocate Mathews Nedumpara. The case pertained to the disclosure of electoral bond numbers, with the court seeking a response from the State Bank of India (SBI) regarding the transparency of these transactions. The five-judge Constitution bench, comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, presided over the proceedings.
During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud admonished Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Advocate Adish Aggarwala for what he perceived as interference in the electoral bonds case. Aggarwala had reportedly sent a letter seeking a suo motu review of the Electoral Bonds judgment, which drew the ire of the Chief Justice. Additionally, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued that the electoral bonds case was not justiciable and constituted a policy matter beyond the court’s purview. Despite attempts by the judges to express their disagreement, Nedumpara continued to speak over them and raised his voice, leading to a tense atmosphere in the courtroom.
In a video of the proceedings shared by Live Today, CJI DY Chandrachud can be heard reprimanding Nedumpara, instructing him not to shout and to follow proper procedures for filing applications. Despite the Chief Justice’s instructions, Nedumpara persisted, prompting Justice BR Gavai to intervene, accusing him of obstructing the administration of justice.
Meanwhile, CJI Chandrachud addressed Adish Aggarwala directly, cautioning him against making further appeals before the bench. The Chief Justice dismissed Aggarwala’s attempts to mention his letter, stating that such actions were publicity-related and not conducive to the proceedings.
The electoral bonds case has been a subject of contention since the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the Electoral Bond Scheme on February 15. The court also directed the SBI and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose details of donors and political parties that received funding through electoral bonds. Introduced in 2017, the scheme allowed individuals to make anonymous donations to political parties of their choice, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in political financing.
In response to the court’s directives, the SBI was instructed to provide complete disclosure of all details related to electoral bonds, including alpha-numeric unique numbers and serial numbers. The court emphasized that the SBI should not selectively disclose information and must comply with its orders in full. Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed the importance of transparency in electoral funding and called on the SBI to act candidly and fairly in disclosing all relevant details.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also addressed the issue of electoral bond numbers, emphasizing the need for comprehensive disclosure. The court stated that there should be no doubt regarding the SBI’s obligation to disclose all relevant information, including alphanumeric codes assigned to each bond. This information would enable the correlation of electoral bond donors with recipient parties, enhancing transparency in political funding.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s claim that its verdict on electoral bonds was being misused and misinterpreted on social media. Chief Justice Chandrachud reaffirmed the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and emphasized that judges operate within the framework of the Constitution. The court reiterated its role in ensuring governance based on the rule of law and pledged to hold accountable those responsible for any violations.
As part of its ruling, the Supreme Court set a deadline for the SBI chairman to submit an affidavit confirming full compliance with the court’s directives. Additionally, the Election Commission of India was instructed to upload details of electoral bond transactions promptly upon receiving the data from the SBI. These measures aimed to enhance transparency and accountability in political financing, addressing concerns about the influence of undisclosed donations on the electoral process.
The Supreme Court’s hearing on the electoral bonds case underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in political funding. The heated exchanges between the bench and the advocates reflected the contentious nature of the issue and the stakes involved in ensuring fair and transparent elections. As the case progresses, the court’s rulings will shape the future of political financing in India, setting important precedents for electoral transparency and accountability.