Shift In Focus Post-Judgment: Centre Expresses Concerns Before Supreme Court About 'Witch Hunting' After Electoral Bonds Judgment

During the electoral bonds case proceedings before the Supreme Court today, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehra made significant remarks, expressing concerns about the unfolding implications of the judgment.

Mehta, representing the Central Government, highlighted the government's objective to combat black money through the electoral bond system. However, he noted a shift in focus post-judgment, leading to what he described as "witch hunting" at a different level.

SG Mehta submitted, "At the outset on behalf of the Central Government...I have something to share and I have been watching this very painfully outside the Court. Your Lordships, sit in kind of a silos, in an ivory tower, not in a negative sense of the term, but what we know here your Lordships never come to know. The way in which your Lordships' judgment is playing out, something you must be informed as the highest Court of the country.

He continued, "What has happened is, our case was that we wanted to curb the black money. A criminal may have made the donation, but ultimately the donation comes in the white economy, and we could not persuade your Lordships. Your Lordships, passed a Judgment. Every one of us understood the judgment and directions in a particular way, what your Lordships want is not kind witch hunting. Earlier, our case was that witch hunting would be by the political parties, if A party is given, B Party in some other State might victimise the donor. Now the witch hunting has started at some other level, not at the governmental level."

He pointed out instances of deliberate attempts to embarrass the Court through press interviews and social media posts following the State Bank of India's application for an extension. Mehta also stressed the need for the Court to address these developments, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining a level playing field.

The SG said that after the SBI filed its Application on March 11, seeking an extension by four months to submit the details of the Electoral Bonds, most serious things started happening thereafter. "Those before the Court started giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the Court and there is a non-level playing field. On this side nobody can rebut that, neither the government can do, nor State Bank can do, nobody else can do. Thereafter, a series, a barrage of social media posts, at least intended to cause embarrassment, started during these two days. Thereafter, now its anybody's field. It is an open field. Statistics, your Lordships, are aware can be twisted in any manner a person wants. Its a matter of intelligence of the reader to understand. Now based upon the twisted and other statistics any kind of posts are being made," he said.

Mehta requested the Bench to issue directions, which has a necessary and inevitable fallout.

The SG said, "I know your Lordships cannot control them ...My Lord may consider issuing a direction which has necessary, an inevitable fallout, which the Court will not be able to control."

CJI DY Chandrachud then told the SG, "We are only concerned about enforcing the directions we issued in Clauses b and c of Para 221. As Judges, we decide according to the Constitution. We are governed by the Rule of Law. We are also the subject matter of comment in the social media and the press. Surely as an institution, our shoulders are broad enough. A Court has an instuitutional role to play in a polity which is governed by the Constitution, the Rule of law. That's the only job."

The SG then clarified, "My purpose is to inform your Lordships, that there is something else playing out which neither your Lordhsips intended nor the scheme intended and kindly bare in mind that on March 11th, we thought that we are ad idem, that this information would help the voter to take a call whether to vote in favour of a particular party or not. Thereafter, this started."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the Respondent, pointed out the Court's interim order of April 2019, which asked the political parties to disclose the name of the donors. He submitted that the information given by the political parties to the ECI, only a few smaller (regional) political parties have disclosed it.

SG Mehta interjected and said, "He is not addressing your Lordships, he is addressing somewhere else. Kindly hear him for some time. So that it comes in the newspaper tomorrow that Mr. Prashant Bhushan vehemently said this. That is the purpose."

Justice B.R Gavai remarked, "Today, Public Interest Litigations have become Publicity Interest Litigation."

"Absolutely! It is Publicity Interest Litigation. There are some hidden agendas. There is no doubt, my lord, and I am not apologetic in saying this," the SG added.

Bhushan said, "I am astonished."

Furthermore, Salve also said, "That is the matter of greatest concern because judgments given on high constitutional principles then are used for purposes other than that they are delivered. Unfortunetly."

The 5-Judge bench, also comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, then directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all the data available with it on the Electoral Bonds. It also directed the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI to file an Affidavit before it stating that all the details available with them regarding the Electoral Bonds have been disclosed.

Cause Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors. & Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 209)