Amidst the corridors of New Delhi, the executive committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has voiced strong disapproval toward a missive penned by its president, senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala. In the letter, Aggarwala implored President Droupadi Murmu to invoke a presidential reference regarding the apex court’s ruling on the electoral bonds scheme, insisting that no action be taken until the matter is reconsidered by the court.
Expressing their dissent, the SCBA distanced itself from Aggarwala’s communication, asserting that the extensive seven-page missive, emblazoned with the letterhead of the All India Bar Association, appeared to be drafted solely by Adish C. Aggarwala in his capacity as the chairman of the All India Bar Association.
“The notable mention of his title as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association below his signature on said correspondence is duly noted,” stated a resolution issued by SCBA’s executive committee.
Emphatically, the SCBA’s executive committee clarified that neither the president nor any committee member had sanctioned such correspondence, nor did they align with the expressed sentiments. “The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association views this action, along with its contents, as an attempt to overstep boundaries and undermine the authority of the Supreme Court of India, and thus unequivocally denounces it,” declared the SCBA’s resolution.
Aggarwala urged the president to initiate a presidential reference in the electoral bonds case, advocating for a comprehensive reevaluation to ensure equitable justice for the Parliament of India, political entities, corporations, and the general populace.
Quoting Article 142, Aggarwala emphasized the Supreme Court’s inherent authority to dispense ‘complete justice.’ “Hence, the Honorable Supreme Court of India ought not to render judgments that could precipitate constitutional deadlock, diminish the sanctity of the Indian Parliament, the collective sagacity of elected representatives, and cast doubt on the democratic functioning of political parties,” he articulated.
Citing Article 143 of the Constitution, Aggarwala underscored the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction and the President’s prerogative to seek counsel from the apex court on matters of public significance. He outlined that should the President perceive the emergence or potential emergence of a pertinent legal or factual question, seeking the court’s opinion would be advantageous.
Aggarwala elucidated that the corporate donation scheme was instituted due to the absence of a structured electoral financing mechanism, intending to afford political entities the opportunity to procure resources through legitimate means for electoral purposes.
In a recent development, the apex court mandated the State Bank of India to divulge details of electoral bonds redeemed by political entities to the Election Commission of India by March 12’s close of business. Warning of potential repercussions for ‘willful disobedience,’ the court cautioned SBI to comply with directives and deadlines. Subsequently, SBI adhered to the apex court’s ruling and furnished the requisite details to the ECI.
A five-judge bench, spearheaded by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, rebuffed SBI’s plea for an extension until June 30 to disclose details, instructing the ECI to publish the information shared by the bank on its official portal by March 15, 5 p.m.
Earlier on February 15, the same five-judge constitutional bench invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, deeming it ‘unconstitutional’ for enabling anonymous political financing and directed the EC to disclose donors, donation amounts, and recipients by March 13.