Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud stated that the court’s “shoulders are broad enough” to address such remarks, as the Centre and State Bank of India (SBI) noted the social media backlash following the Supreme Court’s historic decision in the electoral bonds issue.
Today, the CJI-led five-judge Constitution panel requested that SBI provide all information pertaining to electoral bonds. The state-run bank was being sued for allegedly disclosing “incomplete data” about political funding obtained through the now-canceled programme.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, stated during the hearing that the court has to be updated on the status of its judgement. “The witch-hunting has started on another level and not at the government level. Those before the court started giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the court. It is not a level playing field. There is a barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment,” he said.
Statistics, Mr Mehta said, “can be twisted as people want”. “Based upon twisted statistics, any kind of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction?” he asked.
To this, the Chief Justice replied, “As judges, we are governed by the rule of law, and we work as per the Constitution. As judges, we are also discussed in social media, but as an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary.”
As the Solicitor General cited a “media campaign” on the electoral bonds issue, the Chief Justice doubled down, “Recently, in an interview, I was asked about the criticism of a judgment. I said that as a judge, we cannot defend our judgments, once we deliver a judgment, it becomes public property.”
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for SBI, said the “media is always behind us, with the petitioners saying they will take the SBI to task, haul them up in contempt”. Stressing that the bank is not holding back any information, Mr Salve flagged the risk of a series of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). “Voter knowing is one thing. But if there are PILs saying investigate this and that, I don’t think that is the intent of this court’s judgment,” he said. Mr Salve also said “judgments given for high Constitutional principles are used for purposes other than what they are delivered for, unfortunately”.
The bank was in for some tough talk today, when the Chief Justice said, “SBI’s attitude seems to be ‘you tell us what to disclose, we will disclose’. That does not seem to be fair. When we say ‘all details’, it includes all conceivable data.”
Eventually, the court ordered the bank to provide all information, including the serial number, if any, and alphanumeric number of the redeemed bonds. Additionally, it requested an affidavit from the SBI chairman certifying that no information had been concealed. It was requested that the Election Commission upload the SBI-received data.
