NEW DELHI, Nov 2: The often acrimonious hearings on the electoral bonds issue saw both Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Central government, putting everything aside for a few minutes and focusing on the well-being of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was feeling unwell during the arguments.
At the end of the day’s hearings, the Constitution Bench reserved its judgment on petitions challenging the validity of the electoral bonds scheme. The proceedings spanning over a period of three days focused on arguments pertaining to the voters’ right to information vis-a-vis the right to confidentiality of donors.
The bench also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit within two weeks information on the receipt of electoral bonds by political parties till September 30. The details are to be provided in a sealed cover. “We will not ask the SBI (State Bank of India) to reveal the identity of donors at this stage. That nobody is interested in at the present stage but we would like to know the quantum,” the Chief Justice clarified.
On the third day of the hearings on the electoral bond case on Thursday, Mr Mehta, who was arguing for the Centre before the constitution bench headed by Justice Chandrachud paused, turned around and wondered where Mr Sibal was. Mr Mehta was told something by the team of Mr Sibal, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and when Justice Chandrachud asked him what had happened, he said it was something personal and not connected to the hearing.
The hearing resumed and Mr Sibal walked into the courtroom a little later. That’s when Mr Mehta told the court that Mr Sibal was not feeling well, and offered the use of his chambers to the senior advocate so that he could join the hearing through video conferencing. He said he would also ensure that tea and some snacks would be arranged for Mr Sibal.
The Chief Justice also stepped in and said Mr Sibal could sit in the Supreme Court conference room and join through a video link. The senior advocate decided to take up Justice Chandrachud’s offer and joined the hearing from the conference room until lunch.
Mr Sibal returned to the courtroom after lunch and both Mr Mehta and he were back to their professional, feisty avatars. The latter part of the day’s hearing, in fact, saw an interesting exchange between the two lawyers over political ties.
Speaking hypothetically, Mr Mehta said a person donating to the Congress would not want the BJP to know about it. “As an example, if it is convenient for Mr Sibal, suppose that, as a contractor, I donate to the Congress party. I wouldn’t want the BJP to know because it could form a government in the coming days,” Mr Mehta said.
Mr Sibal intervened and said, “It seems that my learned friend has forgotten that I am no longer a member of the Congress party.” The Solicitor General then said Mr Sibal had appeared on behalf of a Congress leader from Madhya Pradesh in the court. Mr Sibal immediately retorted that while Mr Mehta was representing the government, he was not necessarily a member of the BJP. Mr Mehta replied, “Absolutely not” and Mr Sibal said, “So I am not either.”
(Manas Dasgupta)
