Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 18: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the State of Bank of India (SBI) to be “candid and fair” and not selective while directing it to disclose all details related to electoral bonds that allowed individuals and companies to make donations to political parties.
Asking it to make a “complete disclosure” of electoral bonds data including their unique hidden alphanumeric and serial numbers to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for putting up on the public domain, a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, “We want all information related to the electoral bonds to be disclosed which is in your possession.”
While hearing a petition against the “incomplete data” provided by the SBI on the donations made through electoral bonds, the bench said, “The State of Bank of India was expected to give every conceivable detail with it regarding the electoral bonds. Your attitude seems to ‘you tell us to give the details, then we will give’. SBI should not be selective. SBI has to be candid and fair to the court,” the CJI addressed the SBI, represented by senior advocate Harish Salve.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed SBI Chairman Dinesh Kumar Khara to submit an affidavit by 5 p.m. on Thursday in the apex court, stating that “SBI has disclosed all details of electoral bonds which were in its possession and custody and not withheld any information from disclosure.”
The ECI has to upload the information “forthwith” as soon as it is given by the bank. The Bench clarified that its February 15, 2024 judgement striking down the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding had specified the disclosure of data on poll bonds purchased and redeemed with effect from April 12, 2019 till the date of the verdict
The court dismissed an application filed by an NGO, Citizens Rights Trust, represented by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria and advocate Sneha Kalita for similar disclosure on electoral bonds bought and encashed from March 1, 2018 to April 12, 2019. The NGO had claimed that 9,159 bonds worth ₹4,000 crore were purchased and received by political parties during this period.
The Bench clarified that its judgment had “specifically” directed submission of electoral bonds data from April 12, 2019 and any tinkering now would amount to “substantial modification” of the February 15 verdict. The Bench said it had taken a conscious decision to keep the cut-off date as April 12, 2019 as that was the date on which the court, through an interim order, had put the stakeholders in the case on notice to provide information.
On March 15, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the SBI on why the latter had not shared the alphanumeric numbers of the electoral bonds with the ECI for publication. On Monday, the court made it clear that the unique numbers had to be disclosed to give “logical and complete effect to the ruling” of February 15.
The court said the list of details, including date of purchase of electoral bonds, the amount, names of purchasers, the political parties which redeemed the bonds, etc., were only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
The SBI was earlier criticised for not sharing any link between the donors and the recipients of electoral bonds, after which the Supreme Court ordered them to share the bond “numbers.” However, lawyer Harish Salve said the alphanumeric, a unique figure mentioned on each electoral bond that can be read only under UV light, is only a security feature and separate from the audit trail.
Justifying why the data provided by the SBI does not link the donors with their recipients, he said the purchase and redemption data of electoral bonds were stored in two separate files since the bank was under the dictate of anonymity. “We are a public institution. The impression created outside is that the SBI is playing ducks and drakes with the Supreme Court,” Mr Salve submitted.
The CJI Chandrachud questioned the SBI about the “purpose of the alphanumeric numbers.” “What is the purpose of alphanumeric number? Is it only a security feature or is it to help create an audit trail?” the Chief Justice asked. The court asked how the redeeming branch had used the alphanumeric on the bonds.
“Did the bank use it to check if the bond was a forged one or not?” Chief Justice Chandrachud queried. Mr Salve said the number strip was checked under an ultraviolet light. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, drew the court’s attention to the distortion of facts and numbers, and the “witch-hunting” which had followed the judgment and the publication of the electoral bonds’ data.
“A barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment has started. Statistics are twisted in every manner possible…” Mr Mehta said. Chief Justice Chandrachud said the court’s duty was over with the pronouncement of the judgment. “Our intent was disclosure. We are governed by the rule of law,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.
As the Centre and the SBI flagged the social media fallout of the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in the electoral bonds case, the CJI said the court’s “shoulders are broad enough” to tackle such commentary.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court must be informed about how its judgment is playing out. “The witch-hunting has started on another level and not at the government level. Those before the court started giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the court. It is not a level playing field. There is a barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment,” he said.
Statistics, Mr Mehta said, “can be twisted as people want.” “Based upon twisted statistics, any kind of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction?” he asked. To this, the Chief Justice replied, “As judges, we are governed by the rule of law, and we work as per the Constitution. As judges, we are also discussed in social media, but as an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary.”
As the Solicitor General cited a “media campaign” on the electoral bonds issue, the Chief Justice doubled down, “Recently, in an interview, I was asked about the criticism of a judgment. I said that as a judge, we cannot defend our judgments, once we deliver a judgment, it becomes public property.”
