We use cookies and similar technologies that are necessary to operate the website. Additional cookies are used to perform analysis of website usage. By continuing to use our website, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please read our Cookies Policy.
Closing this modal default settings will be saved.
WhatsApp told the Delhi High Court that forcing them to break message encryption would mean the end of the platform in India. The company argues that its end-to-end encryption protects user privacy and cannot be compromised. India is one of the largest markets for Facebook-owned messaging app WhatsApp. The app has over 900 million users in India.
The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a challenge by WhatsApp and Meta (formerly Facebook) against a new Indian law that requires social media platforms to identify the originators of messages upon court order.
WhatsApp argues that complying with this law would undermine their encryption and violate user privacy. “As a platform, we are saying, if we are told to break encryption, then WhatsApp goes,” stated Tejas Karia, lawyer for WhatsApp.
The messaging platform emphasises that user privacy is a core value and that end-to-end encryption is essential for maintaining it. Users trust WhatsApp because their messages remain confidential and unreadable by anyone except the sender and receiver.
The Indian government, however, argues that tracing message originators is crucial for tackling harmful content and maintaining online safety. They believe social media platforms have a responsibility to help identify those who spread misinformation or incite violence.
“The idea behind the guidelines was to trace the originator of the messages,” said Kirtiman Singh, representing the central government. He added that some mechanism for tracing messages is necessary, especially considering the challenges WhatsApp has faced in the US Congress.
The Delhi High Court acknowledged the complexity of the situation. It observed that "privacy rights were not absolute" and “somewhere balance has to be done”, the HC observed.
The court has postponed the case for further hearing later in August 2024.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
After Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh complained about a widely-circulated deepfake video that showed him promoting political views, Mumbai Police registered a case under the IPC section and IT Act and started further investigation.
Amid the ongoing Indian Lok Sabha elections, the 'Padmaavat' actor fell prey to deepfake menace after his video surfaced online in which he was purportedly heard voicing his political views.
However, it turned out that the video was made using an artificial intelligence (AI) voice clone of the actor. The video, from the actor's recent visit to Varanasi, appears genuine but uses an AI-synthesised voice clone of Ranveer.
Ranveer filed a complaint with Mumbai Police's Cyber Crime Cell, confirmed an official. His spokesperson issued a statement, confirming the filing of an FIR: "Yes, we have filed the police complaint, and an FIR has been lodged against the handle promoting the AI-generated deepfake video of Ranveer Singh."
After the AI-generated video went viral on social media platforms, Ranveer took to his Instagram Story on Friday (April 19) and shared a post in which he wrote, "Deepfake se bacho doston (Friends, beware of deepfakes)."
Previously, a deepfake video of actor Aamir Khan promoting a political party had gone viral. "We want to clarify that Aamir Khan has never endorsed any political party throughout his 35-year career. He has dedicated his efforts to raising awareness through Election Commission public awareness campaigns for many past elections," Aamir's spokesperson clarified in a statement.
Many celebrities have expressed concerns about the misuse of deepfake technology.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed in the Supreme Court seeks directions to introduce a three-year law degree course after school.
Currently, the LLB course, which students can pursue after completing their 12th standard, has a duration of five years. The three-year law degree course is presently available only to graduates.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, in the petition, argues that the five-year duration for the LLB course is "unreasonable and irrational."
He requests the Centre and Bar Council of India to form an Expert Committee to evaluate the feasibility of commencing a three-year
Bachelor of Law course after the 12th standard, similar to Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Arts courses.
The petitioner contends that students can comfortably cover 15-20 subjects in three years (six semesters).
Therefore, the current five-year duration (10 semesters) for the Bachelor of Law Course is deemed unreasonable, arbitrary, and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, he argues.
"The undue five-year time span is arbitrary and irrational for several reasons. Firstly, this length of time is unnecessary for conferring a Bachelor's degree; secondly, the extended period of five years is unsuitable for students; thirdly, the five-year duration is disproportionate to the study of law; and fourthly, it imposes an excessive financial burden on students to complete such a lengthy degree," the petition stated.
The petitioner highlights that reducing the duration to three years would allow students to gain an additional two years of court practice experience.
Referring to examples like Ram Jethmalani, who started law practice at age 18, and Fali S. Nariman, who completed his law degree at age 21, the petitioner questions why the youth of the country should "waste" two additional years in college instead of commencing their profession in their early twenties.
The petitioner respectfully submits that if colleges can confer Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Science degrees immediately after the 12th standard in three years, then it should be feasible to grant a Bachelor of Law degree in the same timeframe.
Students do not require a Bachelor of Arts degree to gain preliminary knowledge of law. Therefore, why should students be compelled to spend an additional two years obtaining it?
The petitioner requests the court to expedite a decision since admissions for the new courses are commencing in May-June.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that if a “lover” dies by suicide due to “love failure”, then the woman cannot be held responsible for abetting the man’s suicide while granting ‘pre-arrest’ (anticipatory) bail to a woman and a man.
An FIR was registered by a man alleging that the two applicants had abetted his son’s suicide. The woman was stated to be in a romantic relationship with the deceased while the other applicant was stated to be a common friend.
A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, in its April 16 order, held, “If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide.
For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”
When the body of the deceased was found by his mother in his room, a “suicide note” was also recovered in which he had written that he was ending his life because of the applicants.
Justice Mahajan said that a bare reading of Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 306 (abetment of suicide) demonstrates that there are twin requirements – suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
The court said “prima facie” from the WhatsApp chats placed on record, it appeared that the deceased was of “sensitive nature and constantly threatened” the female applicant of ending life whenever she refused to talk to him.
The court also noted that the two applicants were granted interim protection last year pursuant to which they joined the investigation.
“It is correct that the deceased had written the name of the applicants in suicide note, but, in the opinion of this court, there is nothing mentioned, as to the nature of threats in the alleged suicide note written by the deceased of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a ‘normal person’ to contemplate suicide,” the high court said.
The court noted that prima facie the alleged suicide note “only expressed a state of anguish” of the deceased towards the applicants, but it “cannot be inferred that the applicants had any intention”, that led the deceased to commit suicide.
“The allegation with respect to applicants teasing the deceased in regards to the failure of his romantic relationship with the (female) applicant…however, does not appear to be instigation which would amount to abetment of suicide in terms of Section 306 IPC. The factum of the alleged suicide note and whether there was any instigation by the applicants will be seen in trial,” the high court underscored.
It was alleged that a scuffle took place between the deceased and the applicants after he saw them together and asked why they were meeting. During the altercation, the deceased sustained injuries and the applicants allegedly damaged his car by throwing bricks. It was also said that while the deceased was leaving the place, the applicants allegedly instigated him by saying they had made “physical relations with each other and will get married soon”.
The woman argued that she had been falsely implicated, and except for her name mentioned in the alleged suicide note of the deceased, there was nothing to show that “he was prompted, forced and instigated by these persons to commit suicide”.
Meanwhile the police alleged that offence committed by the two applicants is “heinous in nature” and the names of both the applicants were written in suicide note, because of whom the deceased died by suicide. The police said that the CCTV footage from the location where the deceased had met with the applicants was also obtained in which the deceased and the male applicant can be seen in a scuffle.
The high court held that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. It said that in the event of arrest, the applicants will be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs50,000 each with two sureties each of the like amount subject to certain conditions.
The court also said that in case the applicants violate the conditions mentioned in the order, the police would be free to move a plea for cancelling their bail. The court, however, clarified that the observations in its order are made to decide the pre-arrest bail applications of the two persons, should not influence the outcome of the trial, and should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
It reads like a plot straight out of a crime thriller: a plan conceived in the United States, a network of professional shooters and weapon caches strategically placed across various Indian states -- all culminating in a shooting outside Bollywood actor Salman Khan's residence.
Early Sunday morning, around 5am, two men on a motorcycle fired four rounds outside Galaxy Apartments in Mumbai's Bandra, where the actor lives, before swiftly fleeing the scene. CCTV footage captured the assailants wearing caps and carrying backpacks, clearly aiming towards the actor's home. One suspect wore a white t-shirt with a black jacket and denim pants, while the other was in a red t-shirt with denim pants.
According to police sources, both men are affiliated with the notorious Lawrence Bishnoi gang. Bishnoi himself is currently incarcerated at Tihar Jail for several high-profile murder cases, including those involving musician Sidhu Moose Wala and Rajput leader Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi of the Karni Sena.
Origins of the Plot
The scheme originated in the United States, where Anmol Bishnoi, Lawrence Bishnoi's brother, tasked Rohit Godara -- a fellow gangster based in the US -- with selecting shooters. Godara, known for his extensive network of professional shooters across India, likely facilitated this operation. Anmol Bishnoi later claimed responsibility for the incident through a Facebook post, although the post's IP address was traced back to Canada, prompting suspicions of VPN usage.
Godara, a key figure in the Bishnoi gang, played a crucial role by providing weapons through associates strategically located in multiple states. Vishal (alias Kalu), chosen for his involvement in previous violent incidents orchestrated by Godara, along with another suspect, acquired a second-hand bike from Raigad district to reach Khan's residence.
Security Concerns and Past Threats
Salman Khan has been a target of threats before, particularly due to his infamous 1998 black buck hunting incident that reportedly offended the Bishnoi community. Last year, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) identified Khan as a top target on Lawrence Bishnoi's hit list.
In response to heightened security threats, Mumbai Police escalated Khan's security status to Y+ and continue to review this arrangement. Eleven security personnel, including commandos and Personal Security Officers (PSOs), accompany Khan at all times in fully bulletproof vehicles.
The investigation into the recent shooting incident involves a coordinated effort across five states --Maharashtra, Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. The involvement of multiple agencies, including the Maharashtra ATS and the NIA, underscores the gravity of the situation.
While the case has been transferred to Mumbai's Crime Branch, there has been no formal request to involve the ATS or NIA in the investigation. The sale of the motorcycle used in the crime is currently under scrutiny, as authorities continue to pursue leads to apprehend those responsible.
1998 Blackbuck Poaching Case
During the shooting of his blockbuster movie Hum Saath Saath Hain, Salman Khan allegedly killed two blackbucks in Bhagoda ki Dhani located in Kankani village near Jodhpur in Rajasthan. He was charged under section 9/51 of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
In what came to be known as the 1998 Blackbuck Case, his co-actors Saif Ali Khan, Sonali Bendre, Neelam and Tabu were also charged under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and under Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were all acquitted after being given the benefit of doubt.
Two other people, namely Dinesh Gawr and Dushyant Singh, were also accused of being with the actors when the poaching allegedly took place.
What Really Happened?
Back in October 1998, the film Hum Saath Saath Hain was being shot in Jodhpur. It has been alleged that the actors were driving around the Kankani Village in a gypsy car when they came across a herd of blackbucks and Salman Khan shot two of them. On realising that they might have been seen, the group of actors allegedly fled the scene.
Blackbucks are sacred to the Bishnoi tribe of Rajasthan; they protect the species for religious reasons. Poonamchand Bishnoi, a member of the sect, claims to have witnessed the event taking place. Bishnoi later testified against the group of actors, saying that he saw the actors fleeing away from the scene.
(The writer is a legal associate at NYK Law Firm, one of the top legal consultants in Dubai)
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
India's top court admonished the head of a state drugs regulator for failing to take action against a popular yoga guru's firm which claimed its traditional ayurvedic medicines can cure chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma.
The Supreme Court said the state drugs department had "tried to pass on the buck" despite being informed in 2018 of advertisements issued by Divya Pharmacy, a unit of yoga guru Baba Ramdev's hugely popular firm Patanjali Ayurved.
Ramdev, dressed in a saffron-coloured robe, attended the hearing of contempt case against Patanjali for defying court directives to stop publishing the ads.
Mithilesh Kumar, the head of Uttarakhand state drugs regulator, also attended the session. With folded hands, he pleaded with the judges to give him more time to take action against the company, which the judges refused.
"Why should we not come down on your officers like a ton of bricks?" Justice Hima Kohli asked the Uttarakhand state counsel.
"Instead of taking action, the state licensing authority told (the federal government) that it has issued a warning to the concerned firm and further action will be subject to direction of Supreme Court," Kohli said.
Ramdev is one of India's top yoga gurus and offers ayurvedic cures for many illnesses through his TV shows. He has also shared the stage with ministers in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government and leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in the past.
The two-judge bench said the drugs authority remained in "deep slumber" on the issue and had failed to act after issuing a warning to the firm over the advertisements.
The bench also refused to accept a second apology by Ramdev and Patanjali co-founder Acharya Balkrishna for defying the court's order. It set April 16 as the next date of hearing.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Indian expatriates and visitors in the UAE now have the convenience of making payments using the PhonePe App, thanks to the expansion of the company’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) in the region through a collaboration with Dubai-based Mashreq Bank.
Transactions can be seamlessly executed at Mashreq’s NEOPAY Terminals, which are widely available across retail stores, dining outlets, tourist spots, and leisure attractions.
Here’s How You Can Activate PhonePe International:
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The 2024 Lok Sabha elections in India are on the horizon, commencing on April 19 and concluding on June 1.
Indian expatriates residing in the UAE can register as voters for these elections. To be eligible, non-resident Indians (NRIs) can register both online and offline, but they must physically be present in their respective constituency to cast their vote.
Historically, NRIs were unable to participate in Indian elections until the Representation of People (Amendment) Act of 2010 granted them voting rights. The Election Commission of India has encouraged NRI voters to exercise their franchise this year.
To gain voting rights, NRIs must possess a valid Indian passport and be at least 18 years old as of January 1 of the year the electoral roll is published in their Indian constituency.
For Online Registration
For Offline Registration
By following these steps, Indian expatriates in the UAE can actively participate in the democratic process of India's Lok Sabha elections.
The participation of NRIs in the electoral process is a testament to India's dedication to inclusive democracy and reflects its commitment to ensuring that every eligible citizen has a voice in shaping the nation's future.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has sparked a heated debate over his ability to continue governing from jail.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case and subsequently remanded in the agency's custody till March 28 by a Delhi court.
After Kejriwal's arrest, Delhi Cabinet minister Atishi said that he would continue as the chief minister and run the city government from prison if needed. Kejriwal's Punjab counterpart Bhagwant Mann also said that the party's supremo cannot be replaced.
Kejriwal had issued his first work order from ED's custody on Sunday instructing Water Minister Atishi to solve water and sewer-related problems in some areas of the city.
On Tuesday he gave instructions to Health Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj to ensure that medicines and tests are available to people at all government hospitals and Mohalla Clinics.
Amidst accusations from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and assertions from legal and constitutional experts, questions loom regarding the practicality and legality of governing from jail.
Drama or Constitutional Crisis?
The BJP has vehemently criticised Kejriwal's attempts to issue directives to his ministers while under ED custody. Manjinder Singh Sirsa, the BJP national secretary, contended that a chief minister's capacity to lead effectively diminishes once in custody, labeling the situation as a political spectacle orchestrated by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Immunity vs. Accountability
Constitutionally, prime ministers and chief ministers are not immune to arrest, unlike the president and governors. Article 361 offers immunity only to the latter, emphasising the principle of equality before the law. However, mere arrest doesn't trigger disqualification; conviction is the determining factor.
Logistical Hurdles: Governance from Jail
Theoretically, a chief minister could continue to discharge duties from prison, but logistical challenges abound. Legal experts point to the precedent set by former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, who appointed his wife as CM during his incarceration. However, conducting cabinet meetings or official reviews from a jail cell presents practical hurdles.
Technical Complexities: Delhi's Unique Governance Status
Delhi's unique status as a Union Territory adds layers of complexity. High-ranking officials suggest that constitutional boundaries outlined in Articles 239 AA and 239 AB could exacerbate challenges for Kejriwal's governance from jail. Central rule might become a possibility in case of perceived constitutional breakdown.
Jail Manual vs. Government Mandates
Citing jail manuals, BJP leaders argue that inmates have limited rights, complicating Kejriwal's ability to fulfill his duties. Practical obstacles include the flow of files, delegation of tasks and adherence to new guidelines, raising doubts about the feasibility of governing from behind bars.
As legal, logistical, and constitutional complexities mount, the feasibility of Arvind Kejriwal governing from jail remains uncertain. While AAP asserts his capability to continue, challenges both moral and technical underscore the delicate balance between governance and accountability in the Indian political landscape.
Meanwhile, Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena said the state government will not be run from jail. Replying to a query at the Times Now Summit, the Delhi LG said, "I can assure the people of Delhi that the govern
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Priyadharshni Rahul's story is one of resilience, determination, and empowerment. Her life took a drastic turn at 24 when her marriage collapsed due to unreasonable dowry demands.
Refusing to succumb to societal pressure, she embarked on a journey of resilience and empowerment, transitioning from a victim to a prominent Supreme Court lawyer.
In 2011, facing the shattering fallout of her broken engagement, Priyadharshni recalls the blow to her self-esteem and trust. Unwilling to accept defeat, she pursued legal recourse, challenging the injustice she faced.
Despite societal expectations to remain silent, Priyadharshni's resolve to define her own self-worth led her to the doors of the Madras High Court, where she began her legal battle.
Studying law while fighting her case, Priyadharshni's commitment never wavered. She navigated the complexities of the legal system, eventually reaching the apex court.
Her determination, fueled by a desire for justice, never faltered. "You have to decide what your self-respect is, not the society," she emphasises, underscoring her unwavering resolve.
After 14 years of relentless pursuit, Priyadharshni achieved a breakthrough with the intervention of the Supreme Court. However, her victory extended beyond personal triumph.
She selflessly donated her compensation to the Supreme Court Advocates Welfare Fund, symbolising her commitment to supporting others in need.
Priyadharshni's journey didn't end with her legal victory. Refusing to let her identity be defined by her ordeal, she immersed herself in various initiatives.
From volunteering in prestigious awards programmes to establishing Next Gen Political Leaders, she became a catalyst for change, empowering others to join the fight for justice.
With unwavering support from her husband, Priyadharshni continues her advocacy, providing legal assistance to organisations, corporations and politicians.
Her story serves as a beacon of hope, inspiring countless women to rise above adversity and reclaim their dignity.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Residents of the UAE, including Indian expatriates and individuals of various nationalities, received an unexpected WhatsApp message from an Indian number over the weekend.
The message, accompanied by a letter from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the form of a PDF attachment, sought feedback and suggestions on the Indian government's schemes and initiatives.
While some recipients appreciated the opportunity to provide input on national matters, others expressed concerns over potential data privacy breaches and questioned the relevance of the message to non-Indian residents in the UAE.
Dubai-based Pakistani journalist Asma Zain and Pakistani resident Fahad Siddiqui voiced their confusion and skepticism to the local media, questioning the necessity of their involvement in Indian government affairs. Similarly, a British resident of Dubai, who initially assumed the message was related to his professional engagements, found the communication puzzling."
Amidst the confusion, Emiratis also reported receiving the letter, raising questions about how their contact information was obtained and highlighting concerns over potential violations of data privacy regulations in the UAE.
Opposition parties criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government's outreach efforts, alleging political propaganda and misuse of resources for electoral gain. Congress lawmaker Shashi Tharoor shared screenshots of concerns raised by UAE-based individuals on social media and called for action from the Election Commission of India.
The incident comes at a time when digital data protection and privacy have become increasingly important issues globally, with the UAE implementing strict regulations to safeguard the personal information of its residents, raising significant concerns regarding data privacy laws and the protection of personal information.
With the UAE implementing strict regulations to safeguard individuals' digital data, the intrusion into residents' data by foreign entities without consent highlights potential violations of local privacy laws. Such unauthorised access to personal information not only undermines individuals' privacy rights but also underscores the importance of enforcing stringent measures to prevent unauthorised data collection and ensure compliance with data protection regulations in cross-border communications.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
India has announced its updated patent regulations, streamlining the process of acquiring and managing patents to foster a supportive environment for innovators and creators.
According to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the newly introduced Patent Rules 2024 are anticipated to drive economic growth through advancements in science and technology.
The need for Patent Rules 2024 arose as India experiences a constant influx of technology seeking Intellectual Property (IP) protection, with one application filed approximately every six minutes, as highlighted by the ministry.
Between March 15 of the previous year and March 14 of the current year, India's Patent Office granted over 100,000 new patents, averaging 250 patents awarded each working day.
Given the substantial volume of patent applications, there was a crucial need to fortify India's IP infrastructure and its management by introducing updated regulations, leading to the formulation and notification of the Patent Rules 2024, as explained by the ministry.
Operating under the Ministry of Commerce, India's Patent Office, formerly recognised as the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, oversees these new regulations.
Among the notable provisions of the new rules is the introduction of a "Certificate of Inventorship" to formally recognise the contribution of inventors to patented inventions.
Additionally, the renewal fee for patents has been reduced by 10 per cent for payments made in advance via electronic means for a minimum duration of four years.
Furthermore, the requirement for filing statements of working patents has been relaxed from annually to once every three financial years, aimed at simplifying business operations.
In a bid to facilitate trademark registration processes, the Trademarks Registry of the Patent Office is committed to issuing examination reports within 30 days of receiving a trademark application, as emphasised in the notification.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
From a lottery company with operations in multiple states, to a company that built the Kaleshwaram dam, to large industrial conglomerates, the top five purchasers of electoral bonds spent upwards of ₹3,446 crore between April 2019 and February 2024, data released by the Election Commission of India showed.
The highest donor, with bonds worth ₹1,368 crore, was Future Gaming and Hotel Services Private Limited, a company run by Santiago Martin, commonly known by the moniker “Lottery King”.
The company was the subject of an Enforcement Directorate investigation since 2019, with raids carried out in Coimbatore and Chennai in May 2023 for alleged violations of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Officials familiar with the case said that the ED probe is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation charge sheet that alleged the company sold lotteries from the government of Sikkim in Kerala.
“It was found that Martin and his associate companies and entities had made unlawful gain with a corresponding loss to the government of Sikkim to the extent of ₹910 crore on account of inflating the prize-winning tickets claim from April 2009 to august 2010,” ED said at the time, attaching assets worth ₹457 crorethat belonged to Martin and the company.
The company website explained its operations as having “developed a vast network of dealers, stockists and agents across different lottery playing states in India, wherever lottery sale are permissible”.
Martin, a company website said, began his lottery business in Tamil Nadu in 1988, extending operations gradually to Karnataka and Kerala, and then the north-east. The company now also has arms that deal with construction, real estate, hospitality and visual media entertainment.
The second biggest purchaser of electoral bonds at ₹891crore is Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL), established in 1989 by 67-year-old Pamireddy Pitchi Reddy in Andhra Pradesh’s Krishna district and headquartered in Hyderabad.
The firm has built several projects such as the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project on the Godavari river, and also has interests in hydrocarbons, roads, power, buildings, defence and telecom.
The Kaleshwaram project has been besieged by controversy after piers of the Medigadda barrage were submerged last year, with the Congress, which is now in power in Telangana, accusing the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi government of mismanagement and corruption.
MEIL has also been involved in several other key projects, including the Polavaram dam project, Mission Bhagiratha -- a Telangana government drinking water project -- the Thoothukudi thermal power project and the Zojila tunnel project.
While the ownership of Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited was less clear, Zaubacorp -- a website that tracks the ownership of companies -- suggested that one of its directors was also a director in a Reliance Group company.
Vedanta Private Limited, the industrial conglomerate founded by Anil Agarwal that has interests across sectors including mining, technology and power, is the fourth highest donor with purchases worth ₹400 crore over the five-year period, according to the data.
The company website describes Vedanta as a leading natural resources and technology conglomerate, focusing on large scale expansion of its portfolio in India.
Haldia Energy Limited, a group company of the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, is the fifth highest donor in the scheme, buying bonds worth ₹377 crore.
The company has developed a 600MW thermal power plant in Haldia in West Bengal that supplies power to Kolkata and its suburbs.
“The units began commercial operation from January 2015 onwards. The company supplies its power to CESC Limited, the distribution licensee for the city of Kolkata,” the company website said.
Supreme Court Raps SBI
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court today came down hard on the State Bank of India for not sharing the complete data on electoral bonds, a scheme that allowed individuals and businesses to donate anonymously to political parties. The court had struck down the scheme and directed the bank to share all details on the donations made in the last five years.
Hearing a petition by the Election Commission, the Supreme Court said that the data provided by the SBI was incomplete. The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, directed SBI to disclose electoral bond numbers as well, in addition to the details it has already shared.
"Who is appearing for the State Bank of India? They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India," Chief Justice Chandrachud said right at the outset of the hearing.
In its notice to SBI, the Supreme Court bench has asked the bank to explain the lapse during the next hearing on March 18.
The electoral bond numbers would help establish the link between donors and political parties.
Electoral bonds allowed individuals and businesses to donate money to political parties without declaring it. They were introduced by the BJP government in 2018 as an alternative to cash donations and had been pitched as an initiative to bring transparency in political funding.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
India’s Home Minister Amit Shah asserted that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) will never be taken back and the BJP-led government will never compromise with it.
“This is our sovereign right to ensure Indian citizenship in our country, we will never compromise on it and CAA will never be taken back,” the senior BJP leader said in an interview with a news agency.
The rules of the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, were notified earlier this week, sparking criticism from the opposition parties. Congress leader Pawan Khera last week asserted that the Act will be repealed if his party comes to power at the Centre. Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor made similar claims on Wednesday.
Asked about such statements, the home minister said that even the opposition is aware it has bleak chances of coming to power.
"Even INDI alliance knows that it will not come into power. CAA has been brought by the BJP, and the Narendra Modi-led government has brought it. It is impossible to repeal it. We will spread awareness about it in the whole nation so that those who want to repeal it do not get a place," Shah said.
He scoffed at the opposition's allegations that the Bharatiya Janata Party is creating a new vote bank through the controversial law.
"The opposition has no other work. They have a history of saying one thing and doing another. However, the history of Prime Minister Modi and the BJP is different. What BJP or PM Modi says is like carved in stone. Every guarantee made by Modi is fulfilled," Shah said.
Refuting the charge that the BJP is using CAA for political gains, Shah pointed to the opposition's similar objections to crucial national security decisions.
"They even said that there was a political benefit in surgical strikes and air strikes. So, should we not take action against terrorism?" Shah questioned
On the concerns over the timing of the CAA notification, the minister said, “All opposition parties, including Rahul Gandhi, Mamata, or Kejriwal, are indulging in politics of lies, so the question of timing does not arise.”
Shah reiterated that the BJP had transparently articulated its intentions regarding the CAA well in advance. He pointed out that the party had outlined its commitment to bringing the CAA and providing Indian citizenship to refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan in its 2019 manifesto.
"Rules are now a formality. There is no question of timing, political gain or loss. Now, the Opposition wants to consolidate their vote bank by doing appeasement politics. I want to request them that they have been exposed.
CAA is the law for the entire country and I have reiterated nearly 41 times in four years that it will become a reality," he said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Election Commission will disclose all details on electoral bonds in time, India’s chief election commissioner Rajiv Kumar said. Election Commission will disclose all details on electoral bonds in time, Rajiv Kumar was quoted by PTI as saying.
The poll panel chief's statement comes a day after the State Bank of India submitted all details of electoral bonds to the EC on Tuesday.
“In compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court's directions to the SBI, contained in its order dated February 15 & March 11, 2024 (in the matter of WPC NO.880 of 2017), data on electoral bonds has been supplied by State Bank of India to Election Commission of India,” the Election Commission said.
The Supreme Court had asked the poll panel to publish details of electoral bonds on its website by 5 pm on March 15. The SBI has filed a compliance affidavit before the top court, mentioning the details of electoral bonds that were purchased and redeemed between April 12, 2019 and February 15 this year.
The SBI had submitted electoral bond details to the ECI day after its plea seeking an extension in deadline was rejected by a five-judge bench. “The SBI has to just open the sealed cover, collate the details and give the information to the EC,” the bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had said.
“In the last 26 days, what steps have you taken? Your application is silent on that," the bench had asked SBI. In its February 15 judgement, the apex court had set the deadline for SBI as March 6. The apex court had said that by March 13, the ECI shall publish the details of Electoral Bonds on its official website.
The Supreme Court by its February verdict had struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme which allowed for anonymous funding to political parties, and ordered the SBI to stop issuing Electoral Bonds immediately.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Turning down the State Bank of India's (SBI) request for more time to disclose details of the electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court today said the bank must share the details with the Election Commission of India (ECI) by tomorrow.
The poll body has been asked to publish the details on its website by 5pm on Friday. The court also warned that it will initiate contempt proceedings against the government-run bank if it does not provide the information by tomorrow.
Earlier, hearing SBI's request for more time to provide details of the now-scrapped scheme, the Supreme Court fielded tough questions and asked what the bank has done for the past 26 days. The SBI had approached the court for an extension, allowing it to disclose the details by June 30.
The court had, in a landmark verdict on February 15, scrapped the electoral bonds scheme and directed the Election Commission to make the details of donation public by March 13.
The SBI's plea for more time was opposed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which was among the petitioners who had challenged the electoral bonds scheme brought by the Narendra Modi government in 2017. The ADR had said the application has been filed at the last moment to ensure the details are not public before the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.
Appearing for SBI, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said the bank had followed an SOP to store information about the electoral bonds scheme outside the core banking system.
"We need a little more time to comply with the order. We are trying to collate the info and we are having to reverse the entire process. We as a bank were told that this is supposed to be a secret," he said.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who led the five-judge Constitution bench, noted that it was submitted that the donor details were kept in sealed cover in a Mumbai branch of the bank.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, "You have to just open the sealed cover, collate the details and give the information."
To this, Salve replied, "I have full details on who purchased the bond and I have full details from where the money came from and which political party tendered how much. I have to also now put the name of purchasers. The names have to be collated, crosschecked with the bond numbers."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In a recent development, the Indian Supreme Court has addressed the issue of strengthening the overall functioning of Bar Associations across the country.
The order dated March 4, 2024, issued by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, not only recognised the significance of this matter but also invited senior counsels appearing in the case, as well as those willing to assist, to formulate issues.
This proactive step by the Supreme Court emphasises the urgency and commitment to tackling the challenges faced by Bar Associations and underscores the necessity for collective efforts in shaping the future of the legal profession.
A legal matter initially focused on allegations of discrimination and elitism against the Madras Bar Association has taken a new direction. Senior Counsels representing the petitioners have decided not to pursue the allegations against Senior Advocate PH Pandian (deceased) or the Madras Bar Association, shifting the focus towards a broader objective – enhancing the status and streamlining the functioning of Bar Associations across the country.
The decision marks a pivotal moment in the legal landscape, reflecting a broader commitment to improving the professionalism and integrity of Bar Associations nationwide. The Supreme Court, recognising the importance of this endeavour, has issued a notable order to address this critical issue.
The Supreme Court order mandates the issuance of notices for the limited purpose of laying down broad guidelines to streamline the overall functioning of Bar Associations. This directive signifies a proactive step towards fostering transparency, accountability and professionalism within these crucial legal entities.
The Supreme Court's decision to intervene and set guidelines is a testament to its commitment to upholding the values of justice and fairness within the legal profession. By establishing clear norms and standards, the court aims to address various challenges faced by Bar Associations, including internal conflicts, lack of transparency and concerns regarding ethical conduct.
Furthermore, the order underscores the importance of collaboration between the judiciary, legal practitioners and Bar Associations in shaping the future of the legal profession. It emphasises the need for collective efforts to promote inclusivity, diversity and equitable representation within Bar Associations, ensuring that they serve as true pillars of the legal community.
The upcoming deadline of April 8, 2024, for the returnable notice signifies a sense of urgency and determination in addressing these pressing issues. It provides an opportunity for stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and contribute to the development of robust guidelines that will strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Bar Associations nationwide.
The Supreme Court's decision to lay down broad guidelines for Bar Associations marks a transformative shift in the legal landscape. It underscores the importance of promoting transparency, accountability, and professionalism within these vital institutions.
As the legal fraternity looks toward the future, this initiative holds the promise of fostering a more inclusive, equitable and ethical legal profession for generations to come.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Netflix India’s docuseries The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth was released yesterday after postponing the initial release date.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking to halt the release of the docuseries.
The series, which focuses on the high-profile Sheena Bora murder case, features Indrani Mukerjea, the primary accused, along with other witnesses.
CBI expressed concerns that the release of the docuseries could potentially bias public opinion and affect the ongoing trial. However, during the hearing on Thursday, Justice Dere challenged this notion, stating, "After seeing the docuseries, we don't know how it prejudices CBI”.
A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande personally viewed the documentary series and found no significant prejudicial content that could impact the trial. The court rejected the CBI's application, emphasising that public perception was of minimal concern.
The Bench highlighted that much of what Indrani Mukerjea conveyed in the series was already accessible in the public domain. Additionally, the court noted that previous books and films had covered the story extensively. "Whatever she [Indrani] has said [in the series], everything is in the public domain. Honestly, we have not found anything that goes against the prosecution," the Bench said.
Furthermore, the court emphasised the presumption of innocence, stating, "You cannot presume the accused to be guilty".
The decision to dismiss the petition reaffirms the court's stance on the matter, indicating that the docuseries does not pose a significant threat to the ongoing legal proceedings.
The Sheena Bora murder case unfolded in 2015 when Shyamwar Rai, a former driver for prominent media personalities Peter and Indrani Mukerjea, confessed during police interrogation to his involvement in Bora's murder.
Rai's revelation implicated Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna in the crime, alleging that they conspired to kill Bora due to her romantic involvement with Peter's son Rahul.
Despite Indrani vehemently denying the allegations and even claiming that Bora is alive and well abroad, all three individuals, along with Peter, who was later arrested by the CBI, are currently facing trial in a Mumbai special court.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The three new criminal laws which replace the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act will come into effect from July 1, according to a government notification.
The three new criminal laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshaya Act. The new laws aim at a complete overhaul of the British-era laws giving a clear definition of terrorism, abolishing sedition as a crime and introducing a new section titled "offences against the state" -- among many other changes.
These three bills were first introduced during the Monsoon session of Parliament in August 2023. After the Standing Committee on Home Affairs made several recommendations, the redrafted versions were introduced in the winter session. India’s home minister Amit Shah said the bills were drafted after wide consultations and he himself had gone through every comma and full stop of the draft.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
This replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Sedition has been deleted but another provision penalising secessionism, separatism, rebellion and acts against the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India has been introduced.
Death penalty for gang rape of minors and mob lynching. Community services have been introduced as one of the punishments for the first time.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
This replaces the CrPC, 1973.
Time-bound investigation, trial and judgment within 30 days of the completion of arguments.
Video recording of the statement of sexual assault victims made mandatory. A new provision for attachment of property and proceeds of crime has been introduced.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
This replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Evidence produced and admissible in courts will include electronic or digital records, emails, server logs, computers, smartphones, laptops, SMS, websites, locational evidence, mails, messages on devices.
Digitisation of all records including case diary, FIR, chargesheet and judgment. Electronic or digital records shall have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as paper records.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Netflix's much-anticipated docuseries, "The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth," originally slated for release on February 23, faces an indefinite delay, now postponed at least until February 29.
The reason behind this unexpected halt stems from the intervention of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has approached the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the series' release.
The crux of the matter revolves around concerns raised by the CBI that the docuseries, delving into the notorious Sheena Bora murder case, could potentially prejudice the ongoing trial.
Netflix, in response to the CBI's appeal, has informed the Bombay High Court that they will withhold the release until the next court hearing on February 29. Furthermore, Netflix has pledged to arrange a special screening for both the CBI officials and the judges involved in the case.
The Case
The Sheena Bora murder case unfolded in 2015 when Shyamwar Rai, a former driver for prominent media personalities Peter and Indrani Mukerjea, confessed during police interrogation to his involvement in Bora's murder.
Rai's revelation implicated Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna in the crime, alleging that they conspired to kill Bora due to her romantic involvement with Peter's son Rahul.
Despite Indrani vehemently denying the allegations and even claiming that Bora is alive and well abroad, all three individuals, along with Peter, who was later arrested by the CBI, are currently facing trial in a Mumbai special court.
The primary contention raised by the CBI against the release of the docuseries revolves around its apprehension that the content could potentially influence public opinion and sway witnesses' testimonies, thereby jeopardising the integrity of the ongoing trial. Specifically, the CBI has objected to the show's promotional claims of featuring "new revelations and unprecedented access," asserting that such assertions could mislead the public and prejudice the case.
Moreover, the CBI has expressed concerns over the inclusion of Indrani's son Mikhail and daughter Vidhie in the docuseries, both of whom are pivotal witnesses in the case. According to the CBI, this inclusion violates Indrani's bail conditions, which prohibit her from contacting witnesses until all evidence is recorded.
In response to the CBI's objections, Netflix has argued against the imposition of pre-censorship, contending that halting the release of the docuseries would infringe upon freedom of expression. However, acknowledging the gravity of the situation, Netflix has agreed to defer the release until the next court hearing.
This incident raises broader questions about censorship, freedom of speech, and the right to a fair trial. Courts are tasked with balancing these fundamental rights, ensuring that while freedom of expression is upheld, it does not unduly interfere with the administration of justice.
Notably, concerns regarding privacy and dignity are often raised by witnesses and family members involved in such cases, underscoring the complex legal landscape surrounding high-profile trials like the Sheena Bora murder case.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The United Arab Emirates and India have inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aimed at propelling the growth of the digital economy. The agreement entails an assessment of the technical and investment prospects for developing data centre projects in India, with an initial capacity of up to 2 gigawatts.
In the esteemed presence of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE, and His Excellency Shri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, the UAE's Ministry of Investment and India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology have signed this MoU, outlining a framework for expanding bilateral investment cooperation in the digital infrastructure sector, particularly focusing on data centre projects in India.
The MoU signifies a significant stride towards fostering opportunities in digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence between the two nations, showcasing their leadership in advancing regional and digital connectivity.
Signed by His Excellency Mohamed Hassan Alsuwaidi, UAE's Minister of Investment, and His Excellency Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India's Minister of External Affairs, representing the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology of India, the MoU paves the way for joint exploration, evaluation, and investment in data centre projects in India, along with promoting investments in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well as supporting R&D and Innovation initiatives. Moreover, both countries will assess the potential for developing AI compute capacity to support a supercomputer cluster in India, offering a capacity of 8 exaflops for use by various sectors including government, public, private and academia.
The UAE stood as the fourth-largest investor in India in 2023 and the seventh-largest source of Foreign Direct Investment overall. On the other hand, India ranks among the top 15 countries globally in terms of data center capacity, boasting a network of 151 data centers across its regions. With its internet economy projected to reach USD 1 trillion by 2030 from USD 175 billion in 2022, India's digital growth is primarily fueled by the widespread adoption of digital interactions among its vast population, supported by data localisation policies and the "Digital India" initiative. This exponential growth in data consumption necessitates robust digital infrastructure and a resilient data center ecosystem.
This MoU between the UAE's Ministry of Investment and India's Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology aims to foster strong collaboration between public and private entities in both countries, facilitating knowledge exchange and building relationships. His Excellency Mohamed Hassan Alsuwaidi, UAE's Minister of Investment, emphasised the shared vision of leveraging technology for driving innovation, economic growth, and societal development, ensuring that India is equipped with scalable solutions to meet its evolving demands and enabling businesses and industries to adapt effectively to future needs.
This MoU follows the signing of strategic agreements between the UAE's Ministry of Investment and various ministries in India in January 2024, spanning sectors such as renewable energy, food processing, and healthcare.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The Indian Supreme Court today delivered its much-awaited verdict on the electoral bonds issue, deeming anonymous electoral bonds as a violation of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, the scheme has been declared unconstitutional.
A constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, heard several cases challenging the controversial electoral bonds scheme over three days before reserving the verdict in November. The judgment was delivered on Thursday morning.
Despite reaching a unanimous decision, with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud delivering the primary judgment, Justice Khanna wrote a concurring opinion with slightly varied rationale. Both rulings tackled two primary inquiries: firstly, whether the omission of disclosing information on voluntary contributions to political parties through the electoral bond scheme and associated amendments to several acts breaches the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and secondly, whether unrestricted corporate financing of political parties, as outlined in the Companies Act amendment, undermines the ideals of equitable and transparent elections.
"Information about the funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting," Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed the importance of open governance. Authoring an opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Gavai, Pardiwala, and Misra, the chief justice held that the electoral bonds scheme violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"At a primary level, political contributions give a seat at the table to contributors, i.e., it enhances access to legislators. This access also translates to influence over policymaking. There is also a legitimate possibility that financial contributions to a political party would lead to a quid pro quo arrangement because of the close nexus between money and politics. The electoral bond scheme and the impugned provisions, to the extent that they infringe upon the right to information of the voter by anonymising contributions through electoral bonds, are violative of Article 19(1)(a)," the verdict noted.
The court held that the restrictive means test of the doctrine of proportionality is not satisfied and that there are other means, apart from electoral bonds, to achieve the purpose of curbing black money, even assuming it to be a legitimate objective. The infringement of the right to information is not justified, the court held.
Acknowledging that the right of informational privacy extends to financial contributions, which is a facet of political affiliation, Chief Justice Chandrachud revealed that a double proportionality standard was applied to balance the conflicting rights to information and to informational privacy.
Rejecting the Union's argument that Clause 7(4)(c) of the scheme balances the two rights, the court said that the provision tilts the balance in favour of the right to informational privacy because the suitability prong of the proportionality standard is only partly fulfilled. Chief Justice Chandrachud accordingly held that the union government has failed to establish that the measure adopted in clause 7(4)(1) of the electoral scheme is the least restrictive measure.
Accordingly, the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Representation of Peoples Act and the Companies Act have been held to be unconstitutional.
The court issued the following directions:
1. The issuing bank shall herewith stop the issuance of electoral bonds.
2. The State Bank of India (SBI) shall submit the details of electoral bonds purchased since the interim order of the Court dated April 12, 2019, till date to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The details shall include the date of purchase of each electoral bond, the name of the purchaser of the bond, and the denomination of the electoral bond purchased.
3. SBI shall submit the details of the political parties which have received contributions through electoral bonds since the interim order dated April 12, 2019, till date to the ECI. SBI must disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by the political parties, which shall include the date of encashment and the denomination of electoral bond.
4. SBI shall submit the above information to the ECI within three weeks from today, i.e., by March 6.
5. ECI shall publish the information received from the SBI on its website by March 13, 2024.
6. Electoral Bonds which are within the validity period of 15 days but which have not been encashed by the political parties yet shall be returned by the political party to the purchaser. The issuing bank shall then refund the amount to the purchaser's account.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Advocate Shadan Farasat, Advocate Nizam Pasha, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for the petitioners.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union Government.
The Petition
At the heart of the petitions lie objections to the electoral bonds scheme, introduced through amendments in the Finance Act 2017. The petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Congress leader Jaya Thakur, argued that the anonymity associated with electoral bonds undermines transparency in political funding and encroaches upon voters' right to information. They further contend that the scheme facilitates contributions through shell companies, raising concerns about accountability and integrity in electoral finance.
In defense of the scheme, the union government had asserted its role in promoting the use of legitimate funds in political financing, ensuring transactions occur through regulated banking channels. Additionally, the government cited the need for donor anonymity to shield contributors from potential retribution by political entities.
Throughout the hearings, the bench posed probing questions to the government, questioning the rationale behind the scheme's 'selective anonymity' and expressing apprehension about its potential to institutionalise kickbacks for political parties.
Notably, concerns were raised regarding the unequal access to donor information, with the ruling party potentially possessing insight into contributors' identities while opposition parties lack such access. The bench also scrutinised the removal of the cap on corporate donations, previously restricted to a maximum of 7.5 per cent of net profits.
As the hearing drew to a close, the bench ordered the Election Commission of India to furnish details of political party contributions via electoral bonds up to September 30.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.