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. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which it Remarks
No. belongs
Part I Part-II
[Contents [Contents of
of Paper file alone]
Book]
[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v]
Court Fees
1 O/R on Limitation A A
2 Listing Performa. NA `A1-A3’
3 Cover page of Paper Book A-3
4 Index of Record of A-4
Proceedings
5 Limitation Report prepared A-5
by the Registry.
6 Defect List A-6
7 Note Sheet NS 1 to
8 Synopsis and List of Dates
9 Against the final impugned
judgment dated 15.02.2024
passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 880 of 2017.
10 Review Petition with
Affidavit.
11 Certificate
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.
14 F/M
15 V/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 1+3
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.
5 Review Petition with Affidavit. 1+3
6 Certificate 1+3
7 I.A. NO. OF 2024 1+3
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the
final impugned judgment.
8 I.A. NO. OF 2024 1+3
Application for hearing of Review Petition in Open Court.
11 Vakalat 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 IN THIS
LEAVE REVIEW
PETITION PETITION
1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA,
ADVOCATE, 101, 1ST FLOOR, THIRD PARTY REVIEW
GUNDECHA CHAMBER, PETITIONER
NAGINDAS ROAD, FORT, NO. 1
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-
400001.

2. DR. CHITTOOR RAJMANNAR

ADVOCATE THIRD PARTY REVIEW
KIZHAKKEKALAPPURACKAL PETITIONER
HOUSE, VENGALLOOR, P.O NO. 2
KUMARAMANGALAM
VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHATALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA –
685608.
VERSUS
1. ASSOCIATION FOR ORIG. RESPONDENT
DEMOCRATICS REFORMS PETITIONER NO. 1
THROUGH ITS FOUNDER
TRUSTEE PRF. JAGDEEP S.
CHHOKAR
 T-95, 2ND FLOOR, C.L. HOUSE,
GAUTAM NAGAR, DISTRICT:
NEW DELHI.

2. COMMON CAUSE (A ORIG. RESPONDENT

REGISTERED SOCIETY) PETITIONER NO. 2
DIRECTOR 5, INSTITUTIONAL
AREA NELSON MANDELA
ROAD VASANT KUNJ,
DISTRICT: NEW DELHI, NEW
DELHI.

3. UINION OF INDIA ORIG. RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF FINANCE RESPONDENT NO. 3
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NO. 1
ROOM NO. 137, NORTH
BLOCK, DISTRICT: NEW
DELHI, DELHI.

4. UNION OF INDIA ORIG. RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF LAW AND RESPONDENT NO. 4
JUSTICE NO. 2
4TH FLOOR, A WING,
RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, DISTRICT:
NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI,
DELHI.

5. ELECTION COMMISSION OF ORIG. RESPONDENT

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

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