The Evening Wrap: SC nixes SBI plea for more time to provide details in electoral bonds case

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an application by the State Bank of India (SBI) for time till June 30, 2024 to provide details of electoral bonds purchased anonymously and their encashment by political parties. A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which had on February 15 struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional, gave the bank 24 hours, that is, by the close of business hours on March 12, to provide the details to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court said the information on electoral bonds required to be divulged by the judgment was “readily available” with the bank. Once the bank forwards the details, the ECI has to go ahead and publish the data on its official website on March 15 by 5 p.m. The court had originally, in its judgment, required the bank to pass on the complete details of the bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 to February 15, 2024; the dates of purchase; the names of the purchasers; the denominations of the bonds purchased along with the details of bonds redeemed by political parties, including the dates of encashment and denominations of the electoral bonds. The judgment had given the bank time till March 6. However, the bank had applied for an extension of time till June 30, possibly well after the Lok Sabha polls, to give the ECI the details. The bank’s request came exactly two days before the court’s March 6 deadline. Senior advocate Harish Salve, for the SBI, explained that matching the bonds purchased and names of donors with the parties which redeemed the bonds was a “time-consuming and complex” exercise. Details were kept in two separate silos and not stored in a digital format. The judgment had capsized the “core purpose” of the electoral bonds scheme, which was “utmost secrecy”. “We have to reverse the whole process”, Salve argued. But Chief Justice Chandrachud said the judgment had not asked the bank to “match” information to ascertain who contributed to which political parties. “We did not tell you to match the details. We had only asked you to do a plain disclosure. We just wanted you to comply with the judgment,” the Chief Justice asked Salve. The Chief Justice said the SBI had in its own application said the information was easily accessible. Chief Justice Chandrachud said contributors, whether they had SBI accounts or not, at the time of purchase of an electoral bond, had to submit to the bank their bond applications, Know Your Customer documentation and proof of payment through NEFT, cheque or demand draft. Similarly, political parties, in order to redeem a bond, had to open current accounts in any of the authorised branches in Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai or New Delhi. “There is no dispute that the process was followed by the bank. So, the information is available,” the court noted. Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked whether the bank wanted a specific judicial order to open the sealed covers containing the bonds’ details right here in the courtroom. “Comply with what is in black and white in the judgment,” Justice B.R. Gavai, on the Bench, addressed Salve. Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the SBI had not even bothered to mention what it had been doing for the past 26 days since the February 15 judgment. “You are the SBI… There should be some candour from your part. What have you been doing for the past 26 days? There is not a word about that in your application,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said. The court said the SBI chose to have an Assistant General Manager file the application seeking more time in response to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court. “He is the man on the spot,” Salve replied. The court said it did not want to initiate contempt proceedings against the SBI as of now. However, the Bench said it was putting the bank on notice, saying it would take action if SBI did not comply with the directions of March 11. Contempt petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, Common Cause and Communist Party of India (Marxist) had contended the bank was deliberately trying to ensure that details of donors and the amounts contributed to political parties anonymously were not disclosed to the public before the Lok Sabha elections due in April-May. Citizenship Amendment Act notified, four years after the law was passed The rules for implementing of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) will be notified today, the Ministry of Home Affairs has announced. These rules, called the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 will enable the persons eligible under CAA-2019 to apply for gant of Indian citizenship. The applications will be submitted in a completely online mode for which a web portal has been provided, the MHA posts on X. The CAA will facilitate the granting of citizenship to undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Notably, the implementation of the CAA was an integral part of the BJP’s 2019 Lok Sabha Election manifesto. The Modi government will now start granting Indian nationality to persecuted non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians — who had come to India till December 31, 2014. The CAA was passed in December 2019 and subsequently got the President’s assent but there were protests in several parts of the country against it. Over a hundred people lost their lives during the anti-CAA protests or police action. Designed to polarise polls, manage headlines: Congress questions CAA rules notification timing The Congress on March 11 alleged that the timing of notifying the rules for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act is evidently designed to polarise the coming Lok Sabha elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also alleged that the announcement is yet another attempt to “manage the headlines” after the Supreme Court’s strictures on the electoral bonds issue. Ramesh said it has taken four years and three months for the Narendra Modi government to notify the rules for the law cleared by Parliament in December 2019. “After seeking nine extensions for the notification of the rules, the timing right before the elections is evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam,” the Congress leader said. “The prime minister claims that his government works in a business-like and time-bound manner. The time taken to notify the rules for the CAA is yet another demonstration of the prime minister’s blatant lies,” he said in a post on X. Supreme Court refuses to stay acquittal of former DU professor Saibaba, says there is no urgency The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the acquittal of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others by the Bombay High Court in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, saying it would be “unusual” to show urgency to imprison a man whose innocence had been already proved by the judgment of a court of law. “There cannot be any urgency to reverse orders of acquittal… that is unheard of. Urgency is only to reverse conviction,” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a Bench with Justice Sandeep Mehta, addressed Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Maharashtra. The Bench noted that a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. A verdict of acquittal in Saibaba’s case fortified the “presumption of innocence”. Though the State had not separately applied for a stay of the High Court verdict of acquittal, the special leave petition contained a prayer for interim stay. The court granted leave, admitting the appeal against the acquittal, but did not specify any date for hearing. “You can file for early hearing. There are two acquittals by different Benches [of the Bombay High Court]… Prima facie we find that judgment is very well reasoned,” Justice Gavai remarked orally. The Bench remarked that it would not have interfered with the judgment, but the Supreme Court had passed orders in the case earlier. This is the second time Maharashtra had appealed against Saibaba in this case. On October 14, 2022, the Bombay High Court had discharged the case against Saibaba for lack of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or the UAPA. But the very next day, a Saturday, saw a Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice (now retired) M.R. Shah stay the discharge order of the High Court, saying the “offences involved are very serious against the sovereignty and integrity of the country”. The decision of the Supreme Court, which came within 24 hours of the High Court’s discharge of the case against the 57-year-old paraplegic, had attracted criticism. Months later, on April 19 last year, the Bench had set aside the discharge order of the High Court. The Bench had reasoned that an appellate court (High Court) could not delve into the question of a valid sanction once an accused (Saibaba) was convicted by the Sessions Court. It had referred the case back to the Bombay High Court for a fresh round of hearing. It had also requested the Bombay Chief Justice to allocate the case to a different Bench of the High Court for the sake of propriety. However, the High Court, this time, acquitted Saibaba and five others, confirming the invalidity of the sanction for prosecution. Congress leader moves Supreme Court seeking to restrain Centre from appointing new Election Commissioners A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Centre from appointing new election commissioners as per a 2023 law, the provisions of which have been challenged in the apex court. Two vacancies of election commissioners have arisen following the resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel and Anup Chandra Pandey’s retirement. The plea has been filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, who has challenged the provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and terms of office) Act, 2023. In her application, Thakur informed the court that during the pendency of her plea, in which a notice was issued on January 12, “one member of Election Commission namely Arun Goel gave resignation on March 9, 2024, which has been accepted by the President”. “That petitioner most respectfully submitted that in view of facts that election for Lok Sabha Election 2024 may be announced shortly, therefore appointment of member of new election commissioners is required immediately, for that this court has given clear verdict in the case of ‘Anoop Baranwal Versus Union of India’ (March 2, 2023 verdict) about the appointment process...,” the plea said. “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately appoint the member election commission of India, as per verdict/judgments passed by this court in the case of Anoop Baranwal Versus Union of India...,” it said. The plea sought a direction to “restrain the Respondents to not appoint the member as per Section 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and terms of office) Act, 2023”. According to the new law, “Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of — (a) the Prime Minister — Chairperson; (b) the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People — Member; (c) a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister — Member.” The opposition has accused the Modi government of having defied the Supreme Court by dropping the CJI from the selection panel. In its March 2023 order, the Supreme Court had said the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the CJI would pick the CEC and the ECs. In BriefIndia test-fires Agni-V ballistic missile with multiple warhead technology under Mission Divyastra In a major technological breakthrough and building in redundancy into the country’s nuclear weapons programme, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 11 announced the successful test firing of Agni-V ballistic missile with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) under Mission Divyastra. The MIRV technology means a single missile can carry multiple warheads. “Proud of our DRDO scientists for Mission Divyastra, the first flight test of indigenously developed Agni-5 missile with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” Modi announced on social media platform ‘X’. Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal’s challenge to Calcutta HC’s transfer of probe into the attack on ED’s team at Sandeshkhali to CBI The Supreme Court on March 11 rejected a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a Calcutta High Court order transferring to the Central Bureau of Investigation the probe into an attack on a team of Enforcement Directorate officers at Sandeshkhali on January 5. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, however, ordered expunging certain remarks and observations made against the State government and the police in the March 5 order of the High Court. Congress moves Delhi High Court in tax penalty case The Congress moved the Delhi High Court on March 11 against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order rejecting its plea seeking a stay on the recovery of outstanding tax for the assessment year 2018-19. The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Vivek Tankha before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. Tankha said it was an urgent matter as the accounts of the political party have been frozen. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan agreed to list the case for hearing during the day if the petition is in order. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 11 March 2024 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Electoral bonds | Supreme Court nixes SBI plea for more time to provide details [The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an application by the State Bank of India (SBI) for time till June 30, 2024 to provide details of electoral bonds purchased anonymously and their encashment by political parties.]( A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which had on February 15 struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional, gave the bank 24 hours, that is, by the close of business hours on March 12, to provide the details to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court said the information on electoral bonds required to be divulged by the judgment was “readily available” with the bank. Once the bank forwards the details, the ECI has to go ahead and publish the data on its official website on March 15 by 5 p.m. The court had originally, in its judgment, required the bank to pass on the complete details of the bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 to February 15, 2024; the dates of purchase; the names of the purchasers; the denominations of the bonds purchased along with the details of bonds redeemed by political parties, including the dates of encashment and denominations of the electoral bonds. The judgment had given the bank time till March 6. However, the bank had applied for an extension of time till June 30, possibly well after the Lok Sabha polls, to give the ECI the details. The bank’s request came exactly two days before the court’s March 6 deadline. Senior advocate Harish Salve, for the SBI, explained that matching the bonds purchased and names of donors with the parties which redeemed the bonds was a “time-consuming and complex” exercise. Details were kept in two separate silos and not stored in a digital format. The judgment had capsized the “core purpose” of the electoral bonds scheme, which was “utmost secrecy”. “We have to reverse the whole process”, Salve argued. But Chief Justice Chandrachud said the judgment had not asked the bank to “match” information to ascertain who contributed to which political parties. “We did not tell you to match the details. We had only asked you to do a plain disclosure. We just wanted you to comply with the judgment,” the Chief Justice asked Salve. The Chief Justice said the SBI had in its own application said the information was easily accessible. Chief Justice Chandrachud said contributors, whether they had SBI accounts or not, at the time of purchase of an electoral bond, had to submit to the bank their bond applications, Know Your Customer documentation and proof of payment through NEFT, cheque or demand draft. Similarly, political parties, in order to redeem a bond, had to open current accounts in any of the authorised branches in Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai or New Delhi. “There is no dispute that the process was followed by the bank. So, the information is available,” the court noted. Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked whether the bank wanted a specific judicial order to open the sealed covers containing the bonds’ details right here in the courtroom. “Comply with what is in black and white in the judgment,” Justice B.R. Gavai, on the Bench, addressed Salve. Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the SBI had not even bothered to mention what it had been doing for the past 26 days since the February 15 judgment. “You are the SBI… There should be some candour from your part. What have you been doing for the past 26 days? There is not a word about that in your application,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said. The court said the SBI chose to have an Assistant General Manager file the application seeking more time in response to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court. “He is the man on the spot,” Salve replied. The court said it did not want to initiate contempt proceedings against the SBI as of now. However, the Bench said it was putting the bank on notice, saying it would take action if SBI did not comply with the directions of March 11. Contempt petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, Common Cause and Communist Party of India (Marxist) had contended the bank was deliberately trying to ensure that details of donors and the amounts contributed to political parties anonymously were not disclosed to the public before the Lok Sabha elections due in April-May. Citizenship Amendment Act notified, four years after the law was passed [The rules for implementing of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) will be notified today]( the Ministry of Home Affairs has announced. These rules, called the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 will enable the persons eligible under CAA-2019 to apply for gant of Indian citizenship. The applications will be submitted in a completely online mode for which a web portal has been provided, the MHA posts on X. The CAA will facilitate the granting of citizenship to undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Notably, the implementation of the CAA was an integral part of the BJP’s 2019 Lok Sabha Election manifesto. The Modi government will now start granting Indian nationality to persecuted non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians — who had come to India till December 31, 2014. The CAA was passed in December 2019 and subsequently got the President’s assent but there were protests in several parts of the country against it. Over a hundred people lost their lives during the anti-CAA protests or police action. Designed to polarise polls, manage headlines: Congress questions CAA rules notification timing The [Congress on March 11 alleged that the timing of notifying the rules for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act is evidently designed to polarise the coming Lok Sabha elections]( especially in West Bengal and Assam. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also alleged that the announcement is yet another attempt to “manage the headlines” after the Supreme Court’s strictures on the electoral bonds issue. Ramesh said it has taken four years and three months for the Narendra Modi government to notify the rules for the law cleared by Parliament in December 2019. “After seeking nine extensions for the notification of the rules, the timing right before the elections is evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam,” the Congress leader said. “The prime minister claims that his government works in a business-like and time-bound manner. The time taken to notify the rules for the CAA is yet another demonstration of the prime minister’s blatant lies,” he said in a post on X. Supreme Court refuses to stay acquittal of former DU professor Saibaba, says there is no urgency The [Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the acquittal of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others by the Bombay High Court in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act]( saying it would be “unusual” to show urgency to imprison a man whose innocence had been already proved by the judgment of a court of law. “There cannot be any urgency to reverse orders of acquittal… that is unheard of. Urgency is only to reverse conviction,” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a Bench with Justice Sandeep Mehta, addressed Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Maharashtra. The Bench noted that a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. A verdict of acquittal in Saibaba’s case fortified the “presumption of innocence”. Though the State had not separately applied for a stay of the High Court verdict of acquittal, the special leave petition contained a prayer for interim stay. The court granted leave, admitting the appeal against the acquittal, but did not specify any date for hearing. “You can file for early hearing. There are two acquittals by different Benches [of the Bombay High Court]… Prima facie we find that judgment is very well reasoned,” Justice Gavai remarked orally. The Bench remarked that it would not have interfered with the judgment, but the Supreme Court had passed orders in the case earlier. This is the second time Maharashtra had appealed against Saibaba in this case. On October 14, 2022, the Bombay High Court had discharged the case against Saibaba for lack of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or the UAPA. But the very next day, a Saturday, saw a Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice (now retired) M.R. Shah stay the discharge order of the High Court, saying the “offences involved are very serious against the sovereignty and integrity of the country”. The decision of the Supreme Court, which came within 24 hours of the High Court’s discharge of the case against the 57-year-old paraplegic, had attracted criticism. Months later, on April 19 last year, the Bench had set aside the discharge order of the High Court. The Bench had reasoned that an appellate court (High Court) could not delve into the question of a valid sanction once an accused (Saibaba) was convicted by the Sessions Court. It had referred the case back to the Bombay High Court for a fresh round of hearing. It had also requested the Bombay Chief Justice to allocate the case to a different Bench of the High Court for the sake of propriety. However, the High Court, this time, acquitted Saibaba and five others, confirming the invalidity of the sanction for prosecution. Congress leader moves Supreme Court seeking to restrain Centre from appointing new Election Commissioners [A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Centre from appointing new election commissioners]( as per a 2023 law, the provisions of which have been challenged in the apex court. Two vacancies of election commissioners have arisen following the resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel and Anup Chandra Pandey’s retirement. The plea has been filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, who has challenged the provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and terms of office) Act, 2023. In her application, Thakur informed the court that during the pendency of her plea, in which a notice was issued on January 12, “one member of Election Commission namely Arun Goel gave resignation on March 9, 2024, which has been accepted by the President”. “That petitioner most respectfully submitted that in view of facts that election for Lok Sabha Election 2024 may be announced shortly, therefore appointment of member of new election commissioners is required immediately, for that this court has given clear verdict in the case of ‘Anoop Baranwal Versus Union of India’ (March 2, 2023 verdict) about the appointment process...,” the plea said. “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately appoint the member election commission of India, as per verdict/judgments passed by this court in the case of Anoop Baranwal Versus Union of India...,” it said. The plea sought a direction to “restrain the Respondents to not appoint the member as per Section 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and terms of office) Act, 2023”. According to the new law, “Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of — (a) the Prime Minister — Chairperson; (b) the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People — Member; (c) a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister — Member.” The opposition has accused the Modi government of having defied the Supreme Court by dropping the CJI from the selection panel. In its March 2023 order, the Supreme Court had said the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the CJI would pick the CEC and the ECs. In Brief India test-fires Agni-V ballistic missile with multiple warhead technology under Mission Divyastra In a major technological breakthrough and building in redundancy into the country’s nuclear weapons programme, [Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 11 announced the successful test firing of Agni-V ballistic missile with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) under Mission Divyastra](. The MIRV technology means a single missile can carry multiple warheads. “Proud of our DRDO scientists for Mission Divyastra, the first flight test of indigenously developed Agni-5 missile with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” Modi announced on social media platform ‘X’. Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal’s challenge to Calcutta HC’s transfer of probe into the attack on ED’s team at Sandeshkhali to CBI The [Supreme Court on March 11 rejected a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a Calcutta High Court order transferring to the Central Bureau of Investigation the probe into an attack on a team of Enforcement Directorate officers at Sandeshkhali]( on January 5. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, however, ordered expunging certain remarks and observations made against the State government and the police in the March 5 order of the High Court. Congress moves Delhi High Court in tax penalty case The [Congress moved the Delhi High Court on March 11 against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order rejecting its plea seeking a stay on the recovery of outstanding tax for the assessment year 2018-19](. The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Vivek Tankha before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. Tankha said it was an urgent matter as the accounts of the political party have been frozen. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan agreed to list the case for hearing during the day if the petition is in order. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[What lies ahead for Pakistan’s new PM and his Cabinet | In Focus podcast] What lies ahead for Pakistan’s new PM and his Cabinet | In Focus podcast]( [[Watch | Former High Commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria on his new book ‘Anger Management’] Watch | Former High Commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria on his new book ‘Anger Management’]( [[Daily Quiz | On players who have played 100 or more Test matches] Daily Quiz | On players who have played 100 or more Test matches]( [[A man received 217 COVID shots — what does his body teach us?] A man received 217 COVID shots — what does his body teach us?]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [click here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](