Rajasthan HC rejects Bail to REET Paper Leak Accused Ram Kripal Meena
Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict on Muslim Parties' Plea Against Varanasi Court Order
Jharkhand HC Announces 55 Assistant Positions in Ranchi; Online Applications Now Open!
Sister-in-Law's Frequent Visits Insufficient to Establish Residence in DV Case : Bombay HC
P&H HC Grants Interim Bail to Eight-Month Pregnant Woman Accused in Murder Case, Citing Health Risks to Mother and Unborn Child
Kerala HC Denies 'Non-Creamy Layer' Certification Plea, Citing Ineligibility Based on Hereditary Occupation Criteria
ED Shifts Sameer Wankhede's Money Laundering Case to Delhi, Informs Bombay HC
J& H HC Emphasizes Due Process, Slams Overuse of Preventive Detention under PSA
Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Abhijit Majumder Over Periyar Remarks
Calcutta HC Takes Suo Motu Action on Alleged Sexual Assault and Land Transfer in Sandeshkhali
SCBA President’s Controversial Letter’s diagnosis

SCBA President’s Controversial Letter’s diagnosis

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) found itself embroiled in internal controversy as its executive committee sought to distance itself from a letter penned by its president, Adish C Aggarwala. The letter, addressed to President Droupadi Murmu, urged a Presidential Reference on the issue of electoral bonds, sparking a rift within the legal fraternity.

In a statement released by the SCBA executive committee, they condemned Aggarwala's actions and disassociated themselves from the letter, highlighting the use of the All India Bar Association (AIBA) letterhead instead of the SCBA's. The committee accused Aggarwala of attempting to overreach and undermine the authority of the Supreme Court of India, labeling his actions as detrimental to the legal institution's integrity.
Aggarwala's letter raised concerns about the potential disclosure of donor identities in the electoral bonds scheme, arguing that such transparency could lead to corporate vulnerability and political victimization. He emphasized the importance of maintaining anonymity for donors to protect their constitutional rights and sovereign guarantees.

Furthermore, Aggarwala expressed apprehensions about the chilling effect disclosure could have on corporate donations, potentially discouraging foreign entities from engaging in the democratic process. He defended the electoral bonds scheme as a means to facilitate lawful funding for political parties, addressing the absence of a formal mechanism for poll funding in the country.

However, despite his concerns, Aggarwala criticized the Supreme Court for potentially delivering judgments that could create constitutional stalemates and undermine the democratic functioning of political parties. He urged the court to consider the broader implications of its decisions on the democratic process and parliamentary sovereignty.

The SCBA's response underscores the internal tensions within legal circles regarding the electoral bonds issue. While Aggarwala's letter reflects concerns about transparency and democratic integrity, the SCBA executive committee's condemnation suggests a broader disagreement within the legal fraternity about the appropriate avenues for addressing such issues.

As the debate over electoral bonds continues, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court, political parties, and civil society will navigate the delicate balance between transparency, accountability, and the protection of democratic institutions.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy