Industry bodies ask SC to defer release of electoral bond numbers

Three industry associations, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci), Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (Assocham) and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), on Monday filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court to defer the release of electoral bond numbers.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to hear their pleas.

In a statement later in the day, Ficci said that it had filed the plea as retrospective actions lead to a fall in business confidence.

"Ease of doing business is a key element of India's competitiveness globally," it said. "Retrospective actions lead to a reduction in business confidence for Indian and global investors. This was the basis for our application."

 

"Ficci believes in fostering a conducive environment for economic development, where the private sector will contribute to the growth of India to the third-largest economy," the statement said.

Assocham and CII did not issue any statement on the plea.

The industry bodies, through senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, wanted an urgent hearing on their interim application against the disclosure of bond details.

The apex court said that the industry bodies could not be given any precedence over other applicants and their plea was not listed for the hearing.

On Monday, the top court asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop being "selective" and make "complete disclosure" of all details related to the electoral bonds scheme by March 21.

The Supreme Court said that the details to be disclosed include the unique bond numbers that would reveal the link between the buyers and the recipient political parties.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said there is "no manner of doubt that the SBI is required to make complete disclosure of all the details" which are in its possession.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had declared the electoral bond scheme "unconstitutional" and ordered disclosure by the Election Commission of donors, the amount donated by them, and the recipients by March 13.

On March 11, the SBI was questioned by the top court about the steps taken to comply with its directions. It then submitted some data to the Election Commission of India (ECI), which was subsequently made public.

Later, the Supreme Court admonished SBI for furnishing incomplete information and issued a notice to the bank to explain the reasons for the non-disclosure of unique alphanumeric numbers.