New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) Monday ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to declare all information it has on electoral bonds — including the alphanumeric number assigned to each bond — which discloses the link between the bond purchaser and the recipient political party. The SBI has to share the information with the election commission by Thursday.
This comes after a five-judge bench of the top court held the electoral bond scheme ‘unconstitutional’ for violating voters’ right to information. In its judgment last month, the SC directed the SBI to publish the bonds’ data within three weeks and denied it an extension.
Several lawyers appeared both for the petitioner, the Association for Democratic Reforms; the respondent, the Union of India; and intervenors. These include seasoned lawyers such as Prashant Bhushan, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, and younger Bar members such as Shadan Farasat. ThePrint brings you a profile of key lawyers in the case.
Prashant Bhushan
Prashant Bhushan is a law graduate from Allahabad University and an Advocate-on-Record, practising before the top court since 1983. He is known for his use of public interest litigations (PIL) as an instrument to support causes, including environment, corruption, and human rights, and has been part of several high-profile cases.
Bhushan argued for the dissemination of information in a case on extending the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to SC and HC judges and also played a critical role in court decisions on the coal block allocation and Vyapam scams, which have had far-reaching implications. He is also noted for a book, The Case That Shook India, based on the famous Raj Narain case, which led to the setting aside of Indira Gandhi’s election in the 1974 Lok Sabha polls, followed by the imposition of the Emergency in 1975.
In 2020, the SC held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for two of his posts on X (then Twitter). In one, he said, “democracy has been destroyed” by SC judgments and chief justices. In another, he criticised a picture of the then Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde.
Eventually, the top court imposed a nominal Rs 1 fine on Bhushan.
Bhushan served as a founding member of India Against Corruption, also known as Team Anna, and then helped form the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Bhushan was also on the drafting committee of the anti-corruption Lokpal bill and has served on other bodies such as the non-profit, Common Cause.
Also read: Directly, via proxy, or through subsidiaries — how India’s biggest corporates bought electoral bonds
Kapil Sibal
Kapil Sibal is a lawyer and Rajya Sabha member who graduated from Delhi University and Harvard University. He has held several administrative posts, including the additional solicitor general and the Supreme Court Bar Association president. He has also held portfolios in the human resource development, communications and IT, and science and technology ministries.
He has appeared in the celebrated Shayara Bano case that led to the ban of triple talaq, and the Puttaswamy case, which started as a challenge to the constitutional validity of Aadhaar but went on to have implications for the challenge to IPC Section 377 when the top court reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Sibal also represented India at the annual meeting of the 2005 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Shadan Farasat
Shadan Farasat is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, and the Harvard Law School.
He serves as the additional advocate general for AAP-led Punjab, the second senior-most law officer in the state, and primarily appears before the top court in a variety of matters.
Farasat has appeared in a variety of contentious cases, including the challenges to alleged illegal detention in Kashmir, and a Sudarshan TV show on Love Jihad, and the triple talaq case on behalf of Muslim women. In the past, he reacted sharply to the then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s letter to have a government member on the SC collegium.
He describes himself as having a “passion for justice” while being committed to the legal profession.
Venkataramani & Tushar Mehta — protecting Union interests
Senior Advocates R. Venkataramani and Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India in the electoral bonds’ case in their capacities as attorney general and solicitor general, respectively — the top two law officer posts in the country.
Venkataramani has been in practice for more than four decades and has appeared extensively in indirect tax cases and served as a member of the law commission and special senior counsel for Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. He has a diverse portfolio, comprising representations for electricity boards, various ministries, universities, and public sector companies.
In the past, the attorney general has served on several key commissions, including the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) task force on judiciary conditions, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, and critical bodies for the right to food and several other issues.
Mehta has been in practice since 1987 and served as solicitor general for the past six years.
Arguing for the Union, he has been a part of several landmark decisions, including the Article 370 verdict. Mehta called Article 370’s enactment a “Himalayan constitutional blunder”, praising Modi’s “iron will” and Shah’s “brilliant strategy” after the SC upheld its abrogation.
Also read: At least 10 buyers of electoral bonds faced action from agencies, some bought 1st bond soon after
Vijay Hansaria
Hansaria has been a senior counsel in practice for over 40 years. He has expertise in constitutional law and is known for his vision of justice despite economic disabilities.
Hansaria has also represented the petitioners in a case seeking sub-classification within the SC and ST category reservations. He has argued that nine-odd SC decisions, which have addressed the problem, such as N.M. Thomas, have not addressed the root of the country’s socio-political reality.
He has also been a part of the critical PIL in which he argued for the permanent disqualification of legislative assemblies’ members upon court convictions.
He has held various critical positions, including on the panels of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the National Legal Services Authority.
Hansaria has also authored several books, including on the SC writ jurisdiction and the power division between the Centre and state in Schedule 7 of the Constitution.
Nizam Pasha
Nizam Pasha is a 2007 National Law School of India University graduate and appears before the Supreme Court of India. He began his career at a top law firm and worked for the attorney general for over two years before striking out on his own and setting up his independent practice.
Pasha has appeared in several notable cases, including the Hijab ban and Manipur violence cases.
In the Hijab ban case, appearing for the Muslim students, he argued the Karnataka HC misunderstood and mis-characterised the Quran to decide whether it was “essential” under Islam.
In the Manipur violence case, Pasha was appreciated by the top court for his 13 “constructive suggestions” regarding the situation of the Zomi students. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud noted that Pasha’s comments were fair and concise and done as an officer of court.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)