SC Directs SBI to Disclose Details of Electoral Bonds to ECI by Tuesday and ECI to Public by Friday, Rejected SBI Plea for More Time

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, Mar 11: The attempt by the State Bank of India to withhold all information about the electoral bonds purchased anonymously and their encashment by political parties at least until the completion of the Lok Sabha failed as the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed its plea for time till June 30 to disclose the details.

A five-judge Constitution Bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, which went into the aspects of the electoral bond scheme, ordered the SBI to furnish all the details about the electoral bonds purchased and redeemed by the political parties by Tuesday evening to the Election Commission of India and directed the poll body to publish the details on its website by March 15 evening.

The court also warned the SBI that it would initiate contempt proceedings against the government-run bank if it did not provide the information by Tuesday as per the order. Earlier, hearing SBI’s request for more time to provide details of the now-scrapped scheme, the Supreme Court fielded tough questions and asked what the bank has done for the past 26 days. The SBI had approached the court for an extension, allowing it to disclose the details by June 30 which was likely to be well after the process of the coming Lok Sabha elections completed.

The bench while passing the order observe that the “submissions of SBI indicate that the information” which was directed to be disclosed “is readily available” with the bank and therefore there was no reason for further extension as sought for. “In view of this, the SBI application …is dismissed. SBI is directed to disclose the details by the close of business hours of March 12, 2024,” the bench said, also asking the ECI to “compile the information and publish the details in its official website, no later than by 5 PM on March 15, 2024.

Striking down the changes made in the laws in 2018 to implement the scheme as unconstitutional, the SC bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had on February 15 asked the SBI to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties, including their date of encashment and the denomination.

In an interim order on April 12, 2019, the SC had asked political parties to submit details of donations via electoral bonds to the ECI in a sealed cover to be kept in the safe custody of the commission till further orders. On Monday, the SC also directed the poll body to publish this data on its website as well.

The court had originally, in its judgment, required the bank to disclose the complete details of the bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 to February 15, 2024; the dates of purchase; the names of the purchasers; the denominations of the bonds purchased along with the details of bonds redeemed by political parties, including the dates of encashment and denominations of the electoral bonds. The judgment had given the bank time till March 6.

The court pointed out that in terms of the provisions of the electoral bonds scheme itself, SBI was mandated to disclose information when mandated by a court. However, the bank had applied for an extension of time till June 30, possibly well after the Lok Sabha polls, to give the ECI the details. The bank’s request came exactly two days before the court’s March 6 deadline.

The court had, in a landmark verdict on February 15, scrapped the electoral bonds scheme and directed the Election Commission to make the details of donation public by March 13. The SBI’s plea for more time was opposed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which was among the petitioners who had challenged the electoral bonds scheme brought by the Narendra Modi government in 2017. The ADR had said the application has been filed at the last moment to ensure the details are not public before the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

Appearing for SBI, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said the bank had followed an SOP to store information about the electoral bonds scheme outside the core banking system. “We need a little more time to comply with the order. We are trying to collate the info and we are having to reverse the entire process. We as a bank were told that this is supposed to be a secret,” he said.

Mr Salve explained that matching the bonds purchased and names of donors with the parties which redeemed the bonds was a “time-consuming and complex” exercise. Details were kept in two separate silos and not stored in a digital format. The judgment had capsized the “core purpose” of the electoral bonds scheme, which was “utmost secrecy.” “We have to reverse the whole process”, Mr Salve argued.

But Chief Justice Chandrachud said the judgment had not asked the bank to “match” information to ascertain who contributed to which political parties. “We did not tell you to match the details. We had only asked you to do a plain disclosure. We just wanted you to comply with the judgment,” the Chief Justice asked Mr Salve.

The CJI noted that it was submitted that the donor details were kept in sealed cover in a Mumbai branch of the bank. Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, “You have to just open the sealed cover, collate the details and give the information.”

To this, Mr Salve replied, “I have full details on who purchased the bond and I have full details from where the money came from and which political party tendered how much. I have to also now put the name of purchasers. The names have to be collated, crosschecked with the bond numbers.”

“It is submitted that matching information from one silo to another is a time-consuming process. We have not asked you to do the matching exercise. So to seek time saying that a matching exercise is to be done is not warranted, we have not directed you to do that,” the Chief Justice said, directing the bank to comply with the judgment.

The Chief Justice then asked what work the bank has done in the past 26 days since the verdict and noted that the bank has not provided this information. “Please tell what matching you have done in the last 26 days. There is a degree of candour expected from SBI as to this is the work which was expected and this has been done,” he said.

Mr Salve said the job would take three more months. “I cannot make a mistake, else I will be sued by donors,” he said. The senior lawyer said the process was designed to prevent leaks. The Chief Justice noted that a senior official of SBI had filed an affidavit, seeking modifications to the Constitution bench’s judgment. “This is a serious issue.”

The Chief Justice said the SBI had in its own application said the information was easily accessible. He said contributors, whether they had SBI accounts or not, at the time of purchase of an electoral bond, had to submit to the bank their bond applications, Know Your Customer documentation and proof of payment through NEFT, cheque or demand draft.

Similarly, political parties, in order to redeem a bond, had to open current accounts in any of the authorised branches in Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai or New Delhi. “There is no dispute that the process was followed by the bank. So, the information is available,” the court noted.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked whether the bank wanted a specific judicial order to open the sealed covers containing the bonds’ details right here in the courtroom. “Comply with what is in black and white in the judgment,” Justice B.R. Gavai, on the Bench, addressed Mr Salve.

Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the SBI had not even bothered to mention what it had been doing for the past 26 days since the February 15 judgment. “You are the SBI… There should be some candour from your part. What have you been doing for the past 26 days? There is not a word about that in your application,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the ADR, welcomed the court’s directions. “The court has dismissed the application of State Bank of India, pointing out that the data that the court had asked them to give is already available with the bank, according to their own affidavit. They have to just submit the details of the donors, on one hand, and the details of the parties which redeemed the bonds, on the other. State Bank of India was saying we have to do cross-matching etc. The court has said you don’t need to do cross-matching, just give these details to the Election Commission and you have to give it by tomorrow,” he said.

“Thereafter, they have said the SBI chairman should file an affidavit to this effect. They are not taking any contempt action, but they may have to if the SBI doesn’t comply,” he added. “It’s a very good, strong judgment in consonance with the earlier strong judgment the court had given on electoral bonds.”

In its February 15 judgment, the Supreme Court held the electoral bonds scheme “unconstitutional” and said it violates the citizens’ right to information.