Supreme Court Dismisses SBI Plea: Electoral Bond Details Delayed, What's Been Done In 26 Days?

The Supreme Court has initiated the hearing of the State Bank of India (SBI) plea, seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was terminated last month.

Chaired by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, a five-judge Constitution bench is currently addressing the matter. Supreme Court directs the Election Commission to compile the information and publish the details on its official website no later than 5 pm on March 15, as reported by ANI.

Furthermore, the bench is set to consider a separate plea filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms and Common Cause. This plea alleges that the SBI deliberately disobeyed the apex court's directive to submit details of political party contributions via electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6, prompting a call for contempt action.

Supreme Court Dismisses SBI Plea

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated, "Submissions of the SBI in its application indicate that the information sought is readily available. Thus, the application by SBI seeking an extension of time until June 30 is dismissed."

Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the SBI, mentioned, "We are trying to collate the information and we are having to reverse the entire process. We as a bank were told that this is supposed to be a secret."

Responding to this, Justice Sanjiv Khanna emphasized, "You have to just open the sealed cover, collate the details, and give the information. ECI was asked to file details in a sealed envelope."

A five-judge bench, led by the CJI, presided over the case. The Bench noted, "In the last 26 days, what steps have you taken? Your application is silent on that."

SBI's Request for Extension

SBI, as the authorized financial institution overseeing the electoral bonds scheme, submitted an application on March 4, requesting an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of bond encashments by political parties.

In its plea to the Supreme Court, SBI cited the complexity of the electoral bond system, stating that retrieving information from various sources and cross-referencing data would be time-consuming.

Emphasizing the importance of donor anonymity, SBI explained that data pertaining to bond issuance and redemption were kept separate to safeguard donors' identities. This segregation was maintained through distinct "silos" for issuance and redemption processes.

SBI elaborated that donor details were sealed and stored at designated branches, with all sealed covers consolidated at the main bank branch in Mumbai to ensure anonymity.

Under the leadership of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, a five-judge Constitution bench will also address a separate petition calling for the initiation of contempt proceedings against the SBI. This petition alleges that the bank deliberately disregarded the Supreme Court's directive to submit details of contributions made to political parties via electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6.

Supreme Court's Electoral Bonds Case: Top 10 Updates

1. The Supreme Court bench, including justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, will convene at 10:30 am to address two petitions.
2. On February 15, a five-judge constitution bench invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, terming it "unconstitutional" and directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose donor information, donation amounts, and recipients by March 13.
3. Following this, the court instructed the State Bank of India (SBI), the designated financial institution for the scheme, to provide details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, onwards to the ECI by March 6.
4. The ECI was then responsible for publishing this information on its official website by March 13. However, on March 4, the SBI filed a petition in the Supreme Court requesting an extension until June 30 to disclose details of encashed electoral bonds, citing the time-consuming process of retrieving and cross-referencing data from various sources.
5. Additionally, the NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause submitted a separate plea, urging the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the bank for allegedly disobeying the apex court's order.
6. The plea argued that the timing of the SBI's application was deliberate, aiming to withhold donor and donation amount details from the public before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
7. It contended that electoral bonds are "completely traceable," evident from the SBI's secret number-based record of donors and recipient political parties.
8. The contempt petition emphasized that any form of anonymity in political party finances contradicts the essence of participatory democracy and people's right to information as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
9. The petition stressed the importance of transparent information on electoral bonds for voters to make informed decisions, highlighting the significance of transparency in the electoral process.
10. Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, leading the argument for the petitioners in the Supreme Court case against the electoral bonds scheme, criticized the SBI's grounds for seeking an extension as "baseless." He underscored the court's duty to uphold integrity and suggested that accepting the bank's plea would undermine the constitutional bench's judgment.