The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Tuesday distanced itself from the letter written by SCBA chief Adish C Aggarwal to the President.
In fact, in an unusual development, Supreme Court Bar Association chief Adish Aggarwal had written a letter to President Draupadi Murmu on Tuesday, urging him to consult the Supreme Court regarding the decision regarding the electoral bond scheme.
The bar association has also condemned the language of the letter and termed it an “attempt to subvert and weaken the authority” of the Supreme Court.
What was demanded in the letter from the President?
Adish C Aggarwal is also the President of All India Bar Association. He also requested the court not to implement the decision until the apex court hears the case again.
Aggarwal has said in his letter to the President, “Disclosing the names of corporate houses that donate to various political parties will make these houses vulnerable to harassment.”
Aggarwal said, “If the names of corporate houses and the amount of donations given to various parties are disclosed, the possibility of them being targeted and harassed by parties receiving less donations cannot be ruled out.” Will go. This would amount to reneging on the promise made to them while accepting voluntary donations (from corporate companies).”
He said that if all the sensitive information is released, and that too with retrospective effect, it will tarnish the ‘reputation of the nation in the international world’. He said the disclosure would lead to an end to future donations and such an act would discourage and dissuade foreign corporate entities from setting up their businesses in India or participating in the democratic process.
Although the letter was printed on ‘All India Bar Association’ letterhead, below Aggarwal’s signature his designation as ‘SCBA President’ was written. SCBA Secretary Rohit Pandey has passed a resolution against this.
He wrote in the resolution, “Therefore, it has become necessary for the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to clarify that the members of the committee have neither authorized (the Chairman) to write any such letter to the President nor do they Agree with his views expressed therein.”
It said, “The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association views this act as well as its language as an attempt to erode and undermine the authority of the Honorable Supreme Court of India and unequivocally condemns it “
The SCBA President urged President Murmu to seek advice from the Supreme Court on the electoral bond issue, so that the entire matter can be heard again and complete justice can be provided to the “Parliament of India, political parties, corporates and the general public”. Article 143 of the Constitution confers ‘consultative jurisdiction’ on the Supreme Court and empowers the President of India to seek advice from the apex court.
If the President feels that any question of law or fact may arise in the present or future and it is necessary to obtain the opinion of the apex court, then the President can refer that question to the Supreme Court for consultation.
The apex court had on Monday ordered State Bank of India to inform the Election Commission of the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties by the end of the working period on March 12.
The court had also warned the bank that if the bank failed to comply with its directions and deadlines, a case of “willful disobedience” could be initiated against it.