Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. V. Gangapurwala The Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

(Against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

WITH

I.A. NO. OF 2024

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

AND

I.A. NO. OF 2024

APPLICATION FOR HEARING OF REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ANR.:

REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSON

MOB. NO. +91 9820535428

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL. NO.      DATE OF PROCEEDINGS         PAGE NO.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

INDEX

S. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which it belongs Remarks

Part I

[Contents of Paper Book] Part-II

[Contents of file alone]

[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v]

Court Fees

1O/R on LimitationAA

2Listing Performa.NA`A1-A3’

3Cover page of Paper BookA-3

4Index of Record of ProceedingsA-4

5Limitation Report prepared by the Registry.A-5

6Defect ListA-6

7Note SheetNS 1 to

8Synopsis and List of Dates

9Against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017.

10Review Petition with Affidavit.

11Certificate

12 I.A. NO.          OF 2023

Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the final impugned judgment.

13 I.A. NO.          OF 2023

Application for hearing of Review Petition in Open Court.

14F/M

15V/A

SECTION-X

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

alongwith Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.s

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

INDEX

SL. NO. PARTICULARS COPIES

1 Office Report on Limitation 1+3

2 Listing Performa 1+3

3 Synopsis and List of Dates 1+3

4 Against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 alongwith Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022. 1+3

5 Review Petition with Affidavit. 1+3

6 Certificate 1+3

7 I.A. NO.                                            OF 2024

Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the final impugned judgment. 1+3

8 I.A. NO.                                            OF 2024

Application for hearing of Review Petition in Open Court. 1+3

11Vakalat and Appearance

Total

Filed by:

Mathews J. Nedumpara

Review Petitioner In Person No.1,

101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra

Mob. No. 9820535428

E-Mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

Dated: 13.04.2024

Place: New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is / are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of __ days in filing the same against order dated 15.02.2024 and petition of condonation of __ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of __ days in refilling the petition and petition for condonation of __ days in refilling has been filed.

(BRANCH OFFICER)

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 13.04.2024

SYNOPSIS

1. The Parliament, where the Petitioners are symbolically present, introduced the electoral bonds scheme by amending the Finance Act, so also by amending various other enactments as a means of curbing the role of black money in politics/elections. It was not a measure which would have totally eradicated the role of black money in politics but it hoped to bring some element of transparency by permitting contributions to be made to the political parties by allowing confidentiality, which meant that the information as to the doners and donees would remain secret.

2. The electoral bonds scheme is by no means a perfect mechanism, nonetheless, it is in the province of legislative policy reflecting the will of the people. It is amenable to correction by way of total repeal, amendment or modification, which also falls in the exclusive domain of the wisdom of the people. The electoral bonds scheme did not involve the fundamental right of any citizen in its strict sense because it concerns every citizen. In other words, the issue was not justiciable at all.

3. However, alleging a make-believe violation of fundamental rights, namely, that right information is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 was invoked. This Hon’ble Court entertained the petition and struck down the law and the scheme without noticing that in doing so it is acting as an appellate authority over the Parliament, substituting its wisdom on a matter which falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy. The Court failed to notice that even assuming the issue is justiciable, the Petitioners therein having not claimed any specific legal injury exclusive to them, their petition could not have been decided as if a private litigation for the enforcement of rights which are specific and exclusive to them. The Court failed to notice that the public opinion could be sharply divided and the majority of the people of this country could probably be in support of the scheme, brought into existence by their elected representatives and that they too have a right to be heard, as much as the PIL/writ petitioners.

4. The Court failed to notice that, if at all it is venturing into the forbidden domain of adjudicating upon a matter of legislative policy, they have a duty to hear the public at large and that the proceedings ought to be converted into a representative proceedings, employing the principles discernible from Order 1 Rule 8. The Petitioners as senior citizens and senior members of the bar, realising that if they do not intervene to point out the gross illegality, obeying the call of their conscience, sought to intervene when the matter came to be listed for further hearing on 15th March, 2024. However, this Court was pleased to decline an audience to the Petitioners, though they have every right to make such an oral submission, not being parties to the proceedings, to bring to the notice of the Court a manifest injustice. The Court, however, was pleased to hear the Petitioners provided that an application is made. Hence the instant review petition.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

15.2.2014 The judgment in the Electoral bonds case, namely, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022, came to be pronounced.

15.3.2024 The above cases were listed for further hearing, namely, for directions concerning the disclosure of the donors and donees.

14.4.2024 The instant review petition is filed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

(Against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

CAUSE TITLE OF REVIEW PETITION POSITION OF THE PARTIES

BETWEEN: IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN THIS

REVIEW PETITION

1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, ADVOCATE, 101, 1ST FLOOR, GUNDECHA CHAMBER, NAGINDAS ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400001.

THIRD PARTY

REVIEW PETITIONER

NO. 1

2. DR. CHITTOOR RAJMANNAR

ADVOCATE

KIZHAKKEKALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR, P.O KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHATALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA – 685608.

THIRD PARTY

REVIEW PETITIONER

NO. 2

VERSUS

1. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATICS REFORMS THROUGH ITS FOUNDER TRUSTEE PRF. JAGDEEP S. CHHOKAR

T-95, 2ND FLOOR, C.L. HOUSE, GAUTAM NAGAR, DISTRICT: NEW DELHI.

ORIG. PETITIONERRESPONDENT

NO. 1

2. COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) DIRECTOR 5, INSTITUTIONAL AREA NELSON MANDELA ROAD VASANT KUNJ, DISTRICT: NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI.

ORIG. PETITIONER RESPONDENT

NO. 2

3. UINION OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

ROOM NO. 137, NORTH BLOCK, DISTRICT: NEW DELHI, DELHI.

ORIG. RESPONDENT NO. 1RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. UNION OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

4TH FLOOR, A WING, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DISTRICT: NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI.

ORIG. RESPONDENT NO. 2RESPONDENT NO. 4

5. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, DISTRICT: NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI ORIG. RESPONDENT NO. 3 RESPONDENT NO. 5

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF

THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Review Petition, under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 along with Writ Petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”), since this Hon’ble Court happened to render a judgment behind the back of the Petitioners/people of this country on the electoral bonds scheme, an issue which exclusively falls within the province of legislative and executive policy and is thus not justiciable at all. This Court failed to notice that even assuming it to be justiciable for mere arguments sake, then the Court could not have entered into a judgment holding the scheme to be unconstitutional without notice to the public at large, the overwhelming majority who may be in support of the scheme and therefore, the proceedings could only have been in the nature of a representative one and not a private litigation for the enforcement of a private right.

1A. The Petitioners are strangers to the above proceedings and the instant review petition is to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that its judgment on the electoral bonds scheme is one rendered null and void ab initio on a subject matter which this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction, trenching into a forbidden domain, namely the questioning the wisdom of the Parliament in a matter of policy.

The Petitioner states that no other appeal against the impugned order is disposed or pending before this Hon’ble Court or before any other court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Petitioners are senior citizens, practicing law for over four decades. The Petitioners are constrained to institute the instant review petition under Article 136 of the constitution being deeply concerned with the gross abuse of the concept of pro bono litigation, a mechanism evolved to make justice accessible to undertrials, bonded labourers and the like, who out of poverty, illiteracy and other like reasons are unable to approach the court, by allowing a third person to act pro bono and invoke Article 32 or 226, being totally hijacked.

2. Pro bono litigation, nay, PIL, as it was originally conceived, was for the enforcement of the rights, particularly fundamental rights, by recourse to the public law remedy as envisaged in Article 226 and 32. What was contemplated originally was pro bono litigation, though now referred to as public interest litigation.

3. The concept of pro bono litigation, often loosely called PIL, was absolutely legal and constitutional. It was the duty of the courts to promote pro bono litigation, because in such litigation there existed a person aggrieved whose fundamental rights are infringed and had no means to access justice. The undertrials, bonded labourers, slum dwellers and other weaker sections, the poorest of the poor, could secure justice as in the case of Olga Tellis, Bhagalpur Blinding’s case, etc. because the court permitted people acting out of compassion and concern for the rights of the underprivileged to approach the court on their behalf. Remedies as contemplated under Article 32 and 226 were made available to the poor, which otherwise they could not have dreamt of.

5. PIL which was a benevolent jurisprudence became popular. Taking advantage of this, vested interests, particularly those self-appointed champions of public interest, for private motives, kept on instituting petitions, no longer for the vindication of the rights of the underprivileged. PIL became an industry, an extremely profitable one at that, with least investment in terms of time and energy. Pro bono litigation came to an end. The so-called PILs came to be instituted invoking Article 32 asserting that none of their rights are infringed.

6. Ubi jus ibi remedium is a fundamental principle of law. Only a person whose rights are infringed can institute legal proceedings, for he alone is entitled to remedies in law. If there is no right, law will provide no remedy. The remedies under Article 32 are available only where fundamental rights are infringed. One must plead so and establish it to claim any remedy. These principles were strictly adhered to till the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati.

6.     Kesavananda Bharati gave rise to a new era, a laughable one, where Article 32 is invoked asserting that none of the fundamental or even legal rights of the Petitioner is infringed but the basic structure is. To repeat, it cannot be disputed that under the system of common law which we follow, and conceivably in all other jurisdictions, no one can invoke the jurisdiction of a court without asserting the violation of a right. The basic structure is not a right and its violation cannot per se entail any remedy to a litigant. If the violation of the basic structure results in the violation of a fundamental right, Article 32 will certainly be open. When Article 32 guarantees access where fundamental rights are violated, there is no reason to offer the ground of violation of basic structure to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32. Stated in simple words, it should offer no difficulty to anyone to understand that when one could invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 complaining violation of fundamental right, there is no need to invoke the violation of “basic structure”, a terminology unknown to common law jurisprudence.

7. The folly of invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court alleging violation of the basic structure instead of the violation of fundamental rights, went unnoticed. Where there is a violation of fundamental rights, that alone needs be pleaded and access to justice is guaranteed. The busybodies and serial PIL-wallas who could not have complained of the violation of any of their legal rights, much less any fundamental right, found it only too easy to access the Supreme Court under Article 32 by pleading violation of the basic structure.

8. The Petitioners who have been practicing lawyers for over four decades have been watching helplessly, the hijacking of the Supreme Court by a powerful lobby of lawyers and others, which hardly requires any elaboration.

9. The basic structure theory, is an attractive proposition which could be discussed in Parliament and public forums. There can be no two opinions that the basic structure of the constitution of India is sacrosanct, primordial, transcendental and all pervasive, and should be preserved. Because federalism, secularism, independence of judiciary, etc. are sacrosanct. No legal rights can be asserted in a court of law complaining of violation of basic structure, because it is (by its nature), too vague and imprecise. Petitioner no. 1 belongs to the microscopic Syrian Christian community of Kerala. If any legislation takes away his right to practice his religion or to adhere to the tenets of the religion which are sacrosanct, then, he can challenge such a law complaining of the violation of freedom of conscience and the right to practice one’s religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is a fundamental principle that the one who invokes the jurisdiction of a court should plead the cause of action specifically and precisely.

10.  No civil court would entertain a suit for the enforcement of the freedom of conscience and the right to practice one’s religion if violation of the basic structure of secularism is pleaded instead of the specific cause of action. It is perfectly rational and logical for the Parliament to debate on the validity of a legislation under consideration as the touchstone of basic structure, because the Parliament is not adjudicating upon the specific injury a citizen has suffered. The Parliament is not adjudicating a lis. On the contrary, a court cannot decide a legal injury based on an abstract concept like basic structure.  For a court to decide, there ought to be a lis, namely, the assertion of a specific legal injury, for instance, the violation of the right to practice one’s religion, stating precisely the manner in which the injury has been caused and by whom, supported by evidence.

11.   The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case held that the Parliament is competent to amend, annul, repeal, every article of the Constitution, including that of the fundamental rights, but not the basic structure. The judgment in Kesavananda Bharti came to be delivered at a time when there was an undeniable conflict between a powerful executive led by Indira Gandhi and the judiciary. Therefore, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati came to receive widespread acceptance. Nobody ever discussed the great folly of the basic structure theory, which had received the imprimatur of the full court of the Supreme Court. And based on it, hundreds of judgments have since been rendered and it is taught in universities as the “landmark” judgment which saved democracy. It is seldom discussed that even before the ink of the said judgment had dried, Indira Gandhi declared emergency, amended the constitution to undo Kesavananda Bharati. It was the so-called illiterate voter who threw Indira Gandhi out of power and restored democracy.

12. The basic structure theory was abused to rewrite the constitution and to bring into existence a new institution called the collegium for the appointment and transfer of judges. The collegium proved that blood is thicker than water and led to blatant nepotism and favouritism in judicial appointments. The Parliament, the voice of the people, enacted the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act to dismantle the collegium and to bring in its place an independent judicial appointments commission. The NJAC was to have six members. The Chief Justice of India as its chairman and two senior-most judges as members. It was to also consist of two eminent men nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition. The sixth member was to be the Law Minister, who was also to be the ex offio convener of the NJAC. The NJAC which was aborted was indeed a mini collegium itself. The judges still had predominant role because any two judges could veto an appointment. For reasons not difficult to be fathomed, for the higher judiciary has been in the hands of a few families, such powerful lobbies, did not want the NJAC to take birth. Accordingly, a few so-called PILs came to be instituted, complaining violation not of any legal or fundamental right, but violation of the basic structure.

 13.  Petitioner no. 1 foresaw the grave danger which was almost a fait accompli. He pleaded for the dismissal of the petition in limine because nobody had complained of the violation of any fundamental right and no petition under Article 32 could lie without such a plea. The said PILs had only pleaded the violation of the independence of judiciary, a basic structure. The plea was that independence of judiciary was not in the discharge of judicial function which is protected by express constitutional provisions, but is in appointment. The further plea was that the core of independence of judiciary is in appointments and that core is protected only when the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has primacy. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not his opinion alone, but the opinion of the plurality of the judges, reflected through the collegium. In other words, the plea was that the core of the independence of the judiciary is the judges appointing themselves! The Collegium is a basic structure by virtue of the Judges-2 case and the Parliament is not competent to enact a law which could destroy the basic structure, namely, the collegium. The NJAC was accordingly struck down. For the Petitioners, as citizens, and as lawyers who have spent a lifetime practicing law, the judgement in the NJAC case, which they tried to prevent, came as a rude shock. The Petitioner no. 1 had been present throughout the hearing of the NJAC case even at the cost of his practice at Bombay.

14. The basic structure theory led to yet another theory, an even more dangerous one. The new theory is that the judgments of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is the law of the land. Judgments of the Supreme Court are not the law of the land, but is binding on the parties before it as res judicata. For instance, the Supreme Court in a case between State v. A, found A, an innocent man to be guilty of murder and sentenced him to be hanged. Here, A will be hanged, not because A is guilty but because he has been found by the court to be guilty. A judgment of the Supreme Court between A and B will not bind C and D who were not parties to the judgment. What is binding in subsequent cases under Article 141 of the constitution is a legal principle, if any, which the Supreme Court has evolved or reaffirmed. There is a clear and manifest distinction between the concept of res judicata and stare decisis. This distinction is practically forgotten today. It is often asserted that judgments of the Supreme Court are the law of the land.

15.  In clear breach of the elementary principle of res inter alios, namely that the judgment of a court will not be binding on those who are not before it even contempt of court proceedings are initiated and Government officials are convicted for contempt for the violation of the guidelines which the Supreme Court has framed in a case of X or Y of which they were not even parties.

16. Our constitution, by virtue of Articles 32 and 226 provide for the enforcement of fundamental/legal rights by empowering the courts to grant various remedies in the nature of writs. If an Act of Parliament, statutory instrument or executive orders or the like, violates the fundamental rights of the citizen, such law or action is liable to be declared as null and void. To do so is the duty, not merely of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but equally or more of the ordinary civil courts, which are the true constitutional courts. The Petitioners refrain from elaborating for the sake of brevity.

17.  The concept of judicial review was in existence even prior to the coming into force of the Constitution. We had a constitutional Act, namely, the Government of India Act, 1935. Any act or action contrary to the said Act was ultra vires. The High Courts, Supreme Court and Civil Courts are certainly competent, nay, duty bound to exercise the power of judicial review. They can hold an act of Parliament to be unconstitutional, provided there exists an actual ‘person aggrieved’ seeking such a remedy. Like our Courts, the Courts in the United States as well, grant declaratory remedies, namely, to hold an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. But such a declaration is between the parties before it where a specific legal injury is complained of and where what one understands in law as ‘lis’ exists. The authoritative pronouncements of superior courts on questions of law are accepted with reverence because of validity of the legal principle evolved and further the courts exercise restraint and do not enter into the province of legislative and executive policy. It is not because the judgment in a case between A and B is treated as binding as res judicata in a subsequent case between C and D. Nowhere else in the world does the Court render judgments which will adversely affect the rights of persons who are not before it or on matters which fall into the realm of executive or legislative policy. In other jurisdictions, the doctrine of stare decicis means the reason for the judgement alone, for reason is law and not the strength of the bench.

18.  The Courts in this country, day in and day out, enter into the domain of legislative and executive policy, forgetting the fact that when the Parliament enacts a law, the citizens are symbolically present and it is with the consent of all the citizens that the law is enacted, and it is binding on all. It is for this reason that the great jurists like Chief Justice Edward Coke and Thomas Fuller said that the record of a Parliament is binding on all, whereas the record of a court will not bind anyone except those before it. There is only one exception, that is where a judgment is in rem. The reason being to extend the benefit of a case of which one was not a party. For instance, in a petition for divorce, where divorce is granted, it is a judgment in rem, namely, as against the whole world, and where it is denied, it is a judgment in personam. Where divorce is granted, third parties can enter into a marriage with the parties.

19. The Petitioners state these fundamental principles only to assert that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment behind the back of the people affected. The Supreme Court has no power to make laws. Article 141 does not confer any such power. Jus dicere et jus non dare, the province of the court is to interpret the law, not make the law, being a fundamental principle.

20. The electoral bonds scheme which the Parliament/government brought into existence by virtue of the amendments to the Finance Act and the Companies Act and the Representation of Peoples Act, RBI Act, is the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives and the Government which is accountable to the parliament. There can certainly be two opinions about the desirability and correctness of the same. The public opinion is sharply divided, often based on political allegiance. If the Electoral bonds scheme is defective, it is certainly open to correction by a democratic process. The nation is slated for an election. Those who oppose the scheme will raise this as an electoral issue, mobilize public support, amend or repeal it. But, for this court to entertain such a petition and to decide the same without the donors and donees on the party array, or even the State Bank of India through which the scheme was executed, is wholly unconstitutional and against the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Here the Court renders a judgement not merely behind the backs of the public at large but even those persons whose rights are directly involved. The judgement of this count in the electoral bonds case is one rendered void ab initio, still born, non est and never ever existed in the eye of law.

21. The electoral bond scheme is not justiciable at all. Because none of the Petitioners have asserted the violation of fundamental rights specific to them to make it a justiciable issue. Their allegation is an absolutely vague one, namely, that the electoral bonds case infringes the principles of free and fair election, inasmuch as the details of the donor and donees and the amount involved are not available to the public at large. The plea was that the confidentiality clause of the scheme was violative of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, namely, the freedom of speech and expression because the right to information is an essential ingredient of the freedom of speech and expression. This Court upheld the vague contention as an enforceable right and declared the scheme as unconstitutional, that too, behind the back of the parties affected and the people of this country, including the Petitioners, because the proceedings which was conducted in the Supreme Court was in the nature of a private litigation.

 22. This Court seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition and in declaring the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to the various enactments to be unconstitutional. Because the challenge was on an issue entirely in the realm of executive and legislative policy and the violation of fundamental right which they claimed was nothing specific to them. Assuming for mere arguments sake that a legislative and executive policy is amenable to judicial review because a vague allegation of violation of fundamental right is made then the pertinent question is, could such a petition ever be heard and decided behind the back of the people of this country who may consider that the scheme is absolutely perfect, involves no violation of fundamental rights and have an equal right to voice the same, not to speak of the persons, be it worthy or unworthy, who donated to the political parties under the promise of confidentiality.

23.  The answer to the above question can only be a definite no. Nobody can be allowed to invoke Article 32 challenging legislations on matters of policy in the name of the doctrine of basic structure or vague violation of fundamental right merely as one of the citizens of this country, without a specific legal injury. The Petitioners sought to intervene on 18.03. 2024 when the above case was listed for further directions as to the implementation of the judgment. The Petitioners ventured to do so because certain lobbies had been taxing this Hon’ble Court by raising sensational political issues which are undoubtedly not justiciable such as the issues concerning Article 370, demonetization, etc. Law and politics are two interrelated subjects. And Courts are often called upon to decide political issues, and rightly so. But converting the court into a political battlefield, conferring upon the court an appellate jurisdiction over Parliament, which in our constitutional scheme cannot be vested in it, would put our judiciary and democracy, both, at peril.

24.  The judiciary is sovereign and supreme in its domain, and it ought to be. And that is why the common man would accept even an erroneous judgment, howsoever grave. Likewise, the Parliament ought to be supreme in its domain. The Petitioners had to intervene because the judgment in the instant case, like in the NJAC case, Judges-2 case, National Tax Tribunal case, the Sabarimala Temple case, the Coastal Road case (in the Bombay High Court), all came to be delivered, to the great detriment of the interest of the public at large, because the Attorney General/Solicitor General failed to discharge their duty by not questioning the very maintainability of such so-called PILs/writ petitions. The Coastal Road project, an infrastructure project, a dire necessity, got delayed by over a year causing a loss of hundreds of crores, only because the Court entertained the PILs of busybodies behind the back of the citizens.

 25.  When the Petitioners intervened orally on 18.03.2024, this Court was pleased to direct them to file an application and assured them that they will be heard. That assurance is an absolute hope for the Petitioners that the instant Review Petition will be heard in the open court, a departure from the practice where review petitions are dismissed in chambers even without such listing being notified as has been the recent experience of the Petitioners.

GROUNDS

A. The challenge on the electoral bond scheme, namely, the challenge on the various statutory provisions is a challenge on a matter which falls in the exclusive realm of legislative and executive policy which is not justiciable at all. The Parliament in its domain is right even where it is wrong, just as much as this Court is right even when it is wrong in its domain. The violation of the fundamental right alleged by the Respondents/Original Petitioners are nothing specific to them for it to constitute a justiciable cause of action. Even where fundamental rights are actually infringed by a legislation on a matter of policy, the legislation will prevail. No fundamental right is absolute.

B. If it is justiciable, then the electoral bonds case ought to have been decided as a representative proceedings by adopting a procedure as nearly as possible to Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. Litigations involving public issues cannot be allowed to be conducted as a private litigation for the enforcement of private rights. To do so would be to enforce the decision of the court behind the back of the affected persons who were not before it. The instant judgment was rendered behind the back of the donors, donees, the citizens of this country and Petitioners, and hence, is one rendered void ab initio, non est, still born and liable to be recalled and reviewed.

C. The electoral bonds case, if at all involves the infringement of any specific fundamental or legal right of anyone, it is that of the doners, all of whom cannot be termed as corrupt, who made contributions to political parties, trusting the Parliament that the confidentiality it assured would not be breached. The Attorney General/Solicitor General failed to protect the Parliament of its majesty, authority and supremacy, it alone representing the will of the people.

The Review Petitioner has not filed any other Review Petition seeking similar relief before this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) To review the judgment dated 15.02.2024 of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 880 of 2017 along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022; and

(b) Pass any other such order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn & Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1

MOB. NO. 9820535428

Place: New Delhi

Drawn on: 13.04.2024

Filed on: 13.04.2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

Along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

vs

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, aged 65 years, s/o late Joseph Nedumpara, Review Petitioner No. 1, Having Office at 101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the Review Petitioner No. 1in the above-mentioned Review Petition. I am well conversant with the facts of the case and am competent to swear to this affidavit on behalf of Review Petitioner no. 2.

2. I say that the I have read and understood the contents of the Synopsis and List of Dates at Pages __ to __ and contents of Para __ to __ at Pages __ to __ of the Review Petition and connected applications at Pages __ to __ and state that the facts mentioned therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

3. I say that the averments of facts stated herein above are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I the above-named deponent affirms that the contents of Para 1 to 4 of this affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified at Cochin, Kerala on this the 14th day of April, 2024.

DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

Along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the instant Review Petition is first application for Review filed by the Petitioner herein and the grounds urged in the instant Review Petition are grounds admissible under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner, whose affidavit is filed in support of the instant Review Petition.

Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1

MOB. NO. 9820535428

Place: New Delhi

Filed on: 14.04.2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

Along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF

THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

                                     REVIEW PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The instant Review Petitioners were not parties to the writ petitions in challenge of the Electoral Bonds case of which a review is sought. The judgment of the Court is reported as 2014 INSC 113. A judgment which is reported is admissible evidence by virtue of Section 84 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no need to produce the certified copy of the judgment.

2. Hence the instant application for exemption from producing the certified copy of the judgment.

PRAYER

           It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) Exempt the Petitioners from filing the certified copy of the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017; and

(ii) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1

MOB. NO. 9820535428

Place: New Delhi

Filed on: 13.04.2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.         OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017

alongwith Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr.  … Review Petitioners

v.s

Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners

APPLICATION FOR HEARING OF REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF

THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

                                   REVIEW PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Review Petition, under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”), since this Hon’ble Court happened to render a judgment behind the back of the Petitioners/people of this country on the electoral bonds scheme, an issue which exclusively falls within the province of legislative and executive policy and is thus not justiciable at all. This Court failed to notice that even assuming it to be justiciable for mere arguments sake, then the Court could not have entered into a judgment holding the scheme to be unconstitutional without notice to the public at large, the overwhelming majority who may be in support of the scheme and therefore, the proceedings could only have been in the nature of a representative one and not a private litigation for the enforcement of a private right.

2. The Parliament, where the Petitioners are symbolically present, introduced the electoral bonds scheme by amending the Finance Act, so also by amending various other enactments as a means of curbing the role of black money in politics/elections. It was not a measure which would have totally eradicated the role of black money in politics but it hoped to bring some element of transparency by permitting contributions to be made to the political parties by allowing confidentiality, which meant that the information as to the doners and donee would remain secret.

3. The electoral bonds scheme is by no means a perfect mechanism, nonetheless, it is in the province of legislative policy reflecting the will of the people. It is amenable to correction by way of total repeal, amendment or modification, which also falls in the exclusive domain of the wisdom of the people. The electoral bonds scheme did not involve the fundamental right of any citizen in its strict sense because it concerns every citizen. In other words, the issue was not justiciable at all.

4. However, alleging a make-believe violation of fundamental rights, namely, that right information is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 was invoked. This Hon’ble Court entertained the petition and struck down the law and the scheme without noticing that in doing so it is acting as an appellate authority over the Parliament, substituting its wisdom on a matter which falls in the exclusive province of legislative and executive policy. The Court failed to notice that even assuming the issue is justiciable, the Petitioners therein having not claimed any specific legal injury exclusive to them, their petition could not have been decided as if a private litigation for the enforcement of rights which are specific and exclusive to them. The Court failed to notice that the public opinion could be sharply divided and the majority of the people of this country could probably be in support of the scheme, brought into existence by their elected representatives and that they too have a right to be heard, as much as the PIL/writ petitioners.

5. The Court failed to notice that, if at all it is venturing into the forbidden domain of adjudicating upon a matter of legislative policy, they have a duty to hear the public at large and that the proceedings ought to be converted into a representative proceedings, employing the principles discernible from Order 1 Rule 8. The Petitioners as senior citizens and senior members of the bar, realising that if they do not intervene to point out the gross illegality, obeying the call of their conscience, sought to intervene when the matter came to be listed for further hearing on 15th March, 2024. However, this Court was pleased to decline an audience to the Petitioners, though they have every right to make such an oral submission, not being parties to the proceedings, to bring to the notice of the Court a manifest injustice. The Court, however, was pleased to hear the Petitioners provided that an application is made.

6. This application is made in furtherance of the assurance granted to the Review Petitioners in open court that they will be heard. To hear the Review Petitioners is of paramount importance since this Court happened to err and trench into the domain of the legislative policy which undoubtedly the Electoral Bonds Scheme falls in, because the AG/SG failed to effectively question the very maintainability of the case.

PRAYER

           It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Allow the present application and list the above stated Review Petition for hearing in Open Court; and/or,

(b) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1

MOB. NO. 9820535428

Place: New Delhi

Filed on: 14.04.2024