SC refuses review of decision against confiscating funds received via electoral bonds
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking the review of its decision rejecting the petitions for confiscating Rs 16,518 crore received by political parties under the 2018 electoral bond scheme.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review plea filed by one Khem Singh Bhati against the top court's decision of August 2, 2024.
The apex court had then rejected the petition seeking confiscation of money received under the scheme.
The bench on March 26 held, "The review petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
The top court's order, made available recently, also refused to accept Bhati's prayer for an open-court hearing in the matter.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by former CJI D Y Chandrachud on February 15 last year scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government.
Following the top court's judgement, the State Bank of India, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, shared the data with the election commission which made it public.
The electoral bonds scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of its efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.
The top court, on August 2 last year, rejected a batch of pleas including the one filed by Bhati for a court-monitored probe into the electoral bonds scheme and observed it couldn't order a roving inquiry.
The review plea, filed through advocate Jayesh K Unnikrishnan and settled by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, said on February 15, 2024 the apex court in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India held the scheme unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"The effect of declaring the electoral bond scheme and the various statutory provisions as unconstitutional is that the said scheme never existed and is void ab-initio and it is a settled position of law that the court only finds law and it does not make law," it argued.
The verdict in the ADR case, the plea said, rendered the EBS void since inception, and therefore, the subsequent pleas seeking confiscation of the amount collected by political parties could not have been dismissed.
"In the absence of any declaration by this court in the ADR case that the judgement would apply prospectively, the existence of the electoral bond scheme on the date of purchase could not have been the basis for dismissal of the present writ petition. The scheme stood wiped out for all purposes from the date of inception and the necessary consequences must follow,” it added.
The plea said the previous bench's reliance on the existence of parliamentary legislation permitting electoral bonds to dismiss the writ petition constituted an "apparent error on the face of the record".
The ADR judgment did not declare its findings to be prospective, which means the statutory framework supporting electoral bonds should have been treated as invalid from the outset, it contended.
The applicant claimed the verdict had a retrospective effect, rendering the scheme null and void since its inception.
The review plea claimed the August 2, 2024 verdict "indirectly modified the ADR judgment".
The plea said evidence disclosed under court directions indicated a quid pro quo between donations made through the scheme and the benefits received by corporate donors, contradicting the bench's conclusion on the claims being speculative.
"Disclosure of information regarding electoral bonds in terms of the direction of this court clearly establish that there was quid pro quo between the donations made to the political parties and benefits received by the corporate houses and the observation...that the writ petition is based on assumption about quid pro quo between the donor and donee and the petitioner is seeking a roving inquiry, suffers from apparent error," it added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nothing wrong if Kharge wants to come back to Karnataka politics: G Parameshwara
Bengaluru(PTI): Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Tuesday said there is nothing wrong if party national President Mallikarjun Kharge wants to return to state politics.
He was responding to a question from reporters on Kharge's remarks, recalling how he lost the Chief Minister's post to S M Krishna after the 1999 Karnataka Assembly polls. Kharge's remarks added to the speculations of leadership change in Congress and about his return to state politics.
Senior Congress leader Parameshwara also said that wrongly interpreting Kharge is also not correct.
Kharge's statement seems to have rekindled the debate on 'Dalit CM' within the party. The AICC President, who hails from Karnataka, belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
Making a Dalit the CM is a hotly debated matter within the Congress party, the issue on which senior leaders and Ministers Parameshwara and H C Mahadevappa have openly spoken in the past. Both belong to Scheduled Castes.
These comments have come amid speculations within the state's political circles, especially within the ruling Congress, for some time now about the Chief Minister change later this year, citing a rumoured power-sharing agreement involving incumbent Siddaramaiah and Deputy CM D K Shivakumar.
"Kharge is a senior leader not only in our party, but in national politics, making comments on him is not right. Kharge is competent to hold all kinds of positions; he has experience, and he has been in politics for about 50 years. If he says something, interpreting it wrongly is not correct," Parameshwara told reporters in response to a question.
Asked about some speaking about his return to state politics, he said, "There is nothing wrong in it. He is holding the decisive position in our party. He is the one who decides as to who should be the Chief Minister, being the AICC President. So, in case he wants to come back to state politics, no one should interpret it wrong."
Speaking at an event in Vijayapura on Sunday, Kharge had recalled about him missing the Chief Ministerial post, when Congress came to power in 1999.
"As CLP (Congress Legislature Party) leader I tried to bring the party to power (ahead of 1999 polls), the party formed the government and S M Krishna became the Chief Minister. He had come (as KPCC President) four months ahead (of polls)....all my service was washed down the river. I feel that -- I toiled for five years, but the person who came four months ago was made the CM," the Congress chief had said.
"What I'm trying to say is, we may face difficulties, but we must continue to work without greed in mind. If you are greedy, you won't get anything, also you won't be able to do what's in your mind. Passing through all these things, from being a block president, I have now become AICC President. I did not go behind positions," he further said.
Mahadevappa too, reacting to Kharge's statement on Monday had said, Kharge is one of the senior leaders in the country and he has all the required qualities to occupy any constitutional post, and our wish is that he should get an opportunity, whenever there is one.
Naming Dalit leaders in Congress who have occupied the CM post in other states like -- Damodaram Sanjivayya, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Jagannath Pahadia and Ram Sundar Das, he said, "When time comes the party will take a decision and everyone will abide by it."
However, trying to downplay speculations, Kharge's son and IT/BT Minister Priyank Kharge on Monday said his father was merely sharing the path he had walked in his political career -- both ups and downs -- and that his speech should be seen in entirety not selectively. He has also made it clear that he has no regrets.
"From the blessings of everyone, the people of Kalaburagi and Karnataka, he is in the post that was once occupied by Subhas Chandra Bose and Gandhiji. Whatever he has decided on his political future, he will decide himself. He has earned that respect and reputation. He has a good relationship with the high command. Whatever he decides, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi will automatically accept it," he said.
