The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association was in for some tough talk by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud during the hearing on electoral bonds today. Adish Aggarwala, senior advocate and president of the lawyers’ body, had sought a suo motu review of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment last month in which it scrapped the electoral bonds scheme and directed the State Bank of India to release all details of political funding made through bonds.
When Mr Aggarwala mentioned the matter today, the Chief Justice replied, sternly, “Apart from being a senior counsel, you are president of SCBA. You have written a letter invoking my suo motu powers. These are all publicity-related stuff and we will not get into this. Do not make me say anything more. It will be distasteful.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta dissociated from Mr Aggarwala’s request. “We don’t support this.”
The senior lawyer had earlier sparked a row when he wrote to President Droupadi Murmu, urging her to seek presidential reference of the Supreme Court judgment in the electoral bonds case.
The Supreme Court Bar Association had distanced itself from his views and said members of the panel had not authorised Mr Aggarwala to write to the President.
“It has become expedient for the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to make it abundantly clear that the members of the committee have neither authorised the President (Aggarwala ) to write any such letter nor do they subscribe to his views as expressed therein.
“The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association further views this act as well as the contents therein as an attempt to overreach and undermine the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and unequivocally condemn the same,” a resolution issued by the bar association’s Secretary Rohit Pandey said.
The resolution said that the letter by Mr Aggarwala appears to have been written by him in his capacity as Chairman of All India Bar Association. “However, it is noticed that below his signature on said letter he has inter-alia mentioned his designation as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association,” it said.
The senior lawyer had, in his letter to the President, urged her to seek presidential reference of the top court ruling and not to give effect to it unless the matter is heard again.
“Revealing the names of corporates that had contributed to different political parties would render the corporates vulnerable to victimisation,” he wrote. He added that if the judgment is given effect retrospectively and all information released, “the reputation the nation enjoys in the international arena” will be shattered.
