9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 586 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional validity of Electoral Bond Scheme and the provisions of the Finance Act 2017 which amended the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1951 and the Income Tax Act 1961 - non-disclosure of information regarding the funding of political parties is violative of the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or not - crux of the submission of the SBI is that the matching of information to ascertain who contributed to which political party is a time-consuming process since the information is maintained in two separate silos - HELD THAT - The Miscellaneous Application filed by the SBI seeking an extension of time for the disclosure of details of the purchase and redemption of Electoral Bonds until 30 June 2024 is dismissed. SBI is directed to disclose the details by the close of business hours on 12 March 2024. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Constitution Bench, ECI had, in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court, filed its statements which have been maintained in the custody of the Court. Copies of the statements which were filed by the ECI before this Court would be maintained in the Office of the ECI. ECI shall forthwith publish the details of the information which was supplied to this Court in pursuance of the interim orders on its official website. The Miscellaneous Application for extension of time shall accordingly stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme and amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017. 2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding the disclosure of Electoral Bond details by the State Bank of India (SBI). Issue 1: Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15 February 2024, declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and the provisions of the Finance Act 2017 unconstitutional. The Court held that the non-disclosure of information regarding the funding of political parties violated the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Additionally, the amendments to the Companies Act 2013, which permitted unlimited funding of political parties by corporate entities, were deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue 2: Compliance with Supreme Court's Directions To implement the judgment, the Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to submit details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed between 12 April 2019 and 15 February 2024. The SBI was instructed to provide the Election Commission of India (ECI) with: - Details of each Electoral Bond purchased, including the date of purchase, the name of the purchaser, and the denomination of the bond. - Details of each Electoral Bond redeemed by political parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination of the bond. The ECI was then directed to publish this information on its website by 13 March 2024. SBI's Request for Extension SBI filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of time until 30 June 2024 to comply with the Court's directions. SBI argued that the process of "decoding the Electoral Bonds and matching the donor to the donations" was complex and time-consuming due to: - Information not being available in a digital format. - Donor details and recipient details being maintained in two separate silos. - A large number of data sets to decipher (22,217 bonds purchased, resulting in 44,434 data sets). Court's Evaluation and Decision The Court evaluated SBI's submission and noted that the information required was readily available, albeit maintained in separate silos. The Court dismissed SBI's request for an extension, directing SBI to disclose the details by 12 March 2024 and the ECI to publish the information by 15 March 2024. Contempt Jurisdiction The petitioners, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), had invoked the contempt jurisdiction against SBI for willful disobedience of the Court's order. However, the Court decided not to exercise this jurisdiction at this stage, considering SBI's application for an extension. The Court warned SBI of potential contempt proceedings for willful disobedience if it failed to comply with the directions by the specified timelines. Conclusion The Miscellaneous Application for extension of time was dismissed, and the Contempt Petitions were disposed of. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
|
