Timely response

SC rightly denies SBI an extension on electoral bonds

The Supreme Court has done well to dismiss an application by State Bank of India (SBI), the state-owned bank that was responsible for issuing electoral bonds, for time till June 30 to provide details about bond purchases made between April 12, 2019 and February 15, 2024. In a hearing that combined SBI’s application with contempt of court petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Supreme Court has given the bank till the close of business hours March 12, to furnish these details to the Election Commission of India (ECI), which, in turn, has to publish the data by 5 pm on March 15 on its website. At the same time, the apex court has declined to initiate contempt proceedings but warned that it will proceed against it if the bank does not comply with this latest order. The chairperson and managing director of SBI are required to file an affidavit on whether the bank has complied with the order. With this ruling, which comes less than a month after its judgment, on February 15, declaring electoral bonds unconstitutional, the five-judge Bench has underlined the important principle of following court orders.

The application for an extension was filed just two days before the Supreme Court’s original deadline of March 6, by an assistant general manager of the bank at that. The explanation given by SBI’s counsel for the delay was that there were challenges in reconciling the donor details with the redemption details, which were filed under different silos, some of them in physical rather than digital form. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud pointed out the court had not asked SBI to “match” information to ascertain which individual had contributed to which party. In its February 15 judgment, the Supreme Court had sought two kinds of information. The first was the name of the purchaser, the date of purchase, and the denomination of the bonds; the second part was details of bonds redeemed by political parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination. SBI appears to have interpreted this as the need to link the purchaser details with the political parties. Justice Chandrachud pointed out that SBI had the Know Your Customer details of the buyers and had stated in its application that the purchaser details were kept under a sealed cover in the main branch. Therefore, he reasoned, all the bank needed to do was open the sealed cover, collate the names, and furnish the details already available with it. In this “short order” the Bench also pointed out each political party could open only one current account in 29 designated bank branches. Therefore, this information, too, would be readily accessible. However, it can be argued that without the requirement of matching the donation and recipient details, this order, when complied with, may not reveal much.

Separately, the court has asked the ECI to publish details of the information of funds received by political parties till September 30. This information had been supplied to the court in a sealed cover following an interim order last November. In its ruling, the court has exposed the somewhat disingenuous arguments by the country’s largest bank, not least because June 30 would have been well after the Lok Sabha election results were out. It highlights, once again, the urgent need for credible and transparent campaign finance laws.