'Sauce for goose is sauce for gander': CJI rebukes industry bodies' plea to defer disclosure of electoral bond numbers

'You were aware of when the proceedings were going on before this court; you could have intervened at that stage,' the bench told the counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for industry bodies like CII, FICCI and Assocham.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on told the industry bodies like CII, FICCI and Assocham that it would not hear their plea in connection with the disclosure of complete details Electoral Bonds launched as opaque system of donation for political parties as their plea was not board.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India that he was appearing for major industry bodies.

"We have filed application this morning," he said.

"Your application is not numbered, it's not registered. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Just because you're appearing for a big client, we will not tolerate this. You have to follow the rules in my court," the bench told Rohatgi.

"There is no such application in the board. Let it be circulated, we will deal with it in normal course," the bench told him.

"You are appearing for big clients, we will not tolerate this," the bench told the counsel who said if the court was making order, the application would become infructuous.

The counsel said, "Kindly defer the order for release of alfa numeric numbers."

"You were aware of when the proceedings were going on before this court, you could have intervened at that stage. What is this that after the judgment is passed," the bench told him.

Rohatgi said he was aggrieved with the order passed on March 15.

"We were not parties," he said.

The bench, however, said, "the whole world knew that the matter is going on. You come here after the judgment is delivered. That is not the way."

Rohatgi said he has no problem with the list of donors and recipients.

"We will not hear you right now, we have specific application on board. You file an email. Our registry will deal with it," the bench said, making it clear to the counsel that it would not show any preferential treatment for his clients.