Electoral bonds data | Retrospective ‘who paid whom’ order has grave impact: Industry bodies

Three big industry bodies — 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 disclosure of the alpha-numeric numbers of the electoral bond.”

Appearing for them, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought to file applications in the Supreme Court for intervention in the electoral bond scheme. He said businesses had purchased bonds under a specific government scheme.

The top court, however, declined to hear him, and said the application was not numbered and that it had to follow procedure.

While specific details of the CII application were not known, a Ficci spokesperson told The Indian Express: “Ease of doing business is a key element of India’s competitiveness globally. Retrospective actions lead to reduction of business confidence for Indian and global investors. This was the basis for our application.” Sources in CII also said the bond scheme had promised anonymity, and seeking such disclosures retrospectively would hurt members of the industry body.

While business houses who would be directly impacted with the disclosures have not moved the SC, the industry chambers highlighted concerns that disclosures of who donated to which party could impact perception. A senior member of CII told The Indian Express, “If I pay Congress, the BJP is upset, and vice versa. There was a promise of confidentiality… it’s very difficult when fresh decisions are implemented retrospectively.”

“A retroactive change in standards of review and disclosure violates the principles of certainty and predictability of law and therefore, such disclosure ought not to be mandated,” the Assocham plea stated.

The five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud also asked the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI to file an affidavit on or before 5 pm on March 21 stating that the bank has disclosed all details of the bonds to the ECI.

It pointed out that through the interim order of April 12, 2019, it had asked political parties to furnish data on bonds received by them to the EC, and thus put everyone on notice.

“There is only one simple answer. With effect from April 12, 2019, when we directed the collection of all details, everybody was put on notice that hereafter, the details which you furnish would be subject to the result of the litigation. Therefore in drawing the balance, we did not ask for the disclosure of the details prior to the interim order of the court and that is a very conscious and well thought out decision of the Constitution bench,” CJI Chandrachud told Rohatgi.