The Supreme Court on Monday, 18th March, dismissed an application filed by Assocham, FICCI and CII opposing the pleas that sought the disclosure of the invisible alphanumeric numbers embossed on electoral bonds. These numbers would reveal the details of who including which company donated money to whom through electoral bonds.
Appearing for the industry bodies was senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi who argued that furnishing the details of which company donated how much money to which political parties would affect the perception of them and make them vulnerable to potential targeting by parties and motivated PIL petitioners.
The industry bodies had approached a five-judge bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Assocham submitted to the SC, “…it is imperative to recognise the potential adverse impact of mandating parties to breach confidentiality agreements and disclose information based on a new standard. Such a directive, if applied retrospectively, undermines the rule of law and presents grave implications for the industry’s interests.”
Assocham, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) moved the SC “opposing the limited directions passed by this Hon’ble Court pertaining to the disclosure of the alpha-numeric numbers of the electoral bond.”
Rohatgi argued that businesses had purchased bonds under a specific government scheme. Sources in the CII reportedly said that the bond scheme had promised anonymity and the disclosures would retrospectively hurt members of the industry body.
“Ease of doing business is a key element of India’s competitiveness globally. Retrospective actions lead to a reduction of business confidence of Indian and global investors. This was the basis for our application,” an FICCI spokesperson told The Indian Express.
The report quoted a CII member as saying, “If I pay Congress, the BJP is upset and vice versa. There was a promise of confidentiality…it is very difficult when fresh decisions are implemented retrospectively.”
However, the CJI said, “The application was not before us. It is not numbered. Rohatgi, what serves for the goose serves for the gander. No oral mention is permitted before my court. Sorry, for big clients, we will not permit this. You have to follow the rules in my court.”
