CJI requested for review of Judgement in regards to disclosure of donors of Electoral Bonds
New Delhi:
The All India Bar Association (AIBA) has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) requesting a suo motu review of the Judgment passed in electoral bonds scheme only qua issue of disclosure of identity of donors and their contributions.
AIBA Chairman Dr Adish Aggarwala who is also the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and former Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) stated that revealing the names of corporate donors and the amount of donations would render the corporates vulnerable for victimisation.
The possibility of them being singled out by those parties, that had received less or no contribution from them, and further harassment, cannot be ruled out if the names of corporate donors and their quantum of donation to various parties are revealed. This will be reneging on the promise given to them while accepting their voluntary donation.
He further submitted that at the time of the donation, the corporate donor was fully aware that after the donation, its identity, amount of donation and particulars of donee political party, would not be made public and would be kept confidential. This provision of secrecy was made in the relevant Scheme with the purpose that the donor will be not subject to victimization by any other political party to whom the donor has not donated under the Scheme.
In this regard, Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala apprised the five judges Bench about his letter addressed to CJI. The Chief Justice Dr DY Chandrachud asked Advocate Aggarwala to mention the matter on Monday.
Adish Aggarwala through a letter stated that as per Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution there should be at least five judges to hear cases that involve “a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution, or any reference under Article 143, which deals with the power of the President of India to consult the Supreme Court of India. But in the Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017 (and other connected matters), while referring the case to the Constitution Bench, the substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution were not framed in the reference order.
The following two questions of law were framed by the Constitution Bench while delivering the Judgment:
a. Whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act infringes the principle of free and fair elections and violates Article 14 of the Constitution; and
b. Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of the RPA, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act and Section 13A(b) of the IT Act are violative of the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The issue raised by me does not get covered in the aforesaid two issues framed and decided by the Constitutional Bench and thus, there is a need to review the Judgment on the points raised by me in the present letter, stated Adish Aggarwala.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Hindkesharistaff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
