‘Reveal details of electoral bonds by tomorrow’: Supreme Court rejects SBI’s plea

The Supreme Court rejected State Bank of India’s (SBI) request for more time to disclose details of its electoral bonds scheme, saying the bank must share the details with the Election Commission of India (ECI) by tomorrow. The pollster has been asked to publish the details on its website by 5pm on Friday.

The court also warned that it would initiate contempt proceedings if the government-run bank did not provide information by tomorrow.

Earlier, the apex court, after hearing SBI’s plea seeking more time to provide details of the now-abandoned scheme, asked tough questions and asked what the bank had done in the past 26 days. SBI has sought an extension from the court to allow it to disclose the details before June 30.

In a landmark judgment on February 15, the court struck down the electoral bond scheme and directed the Election Commission to publish details of donations by March 13.

The SBI’s plea for more time was opposed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners challenging the electoral bonds scheme proposed by the Narendra Modi government in 2017. The ADR said the application was made at the last moment to ensure that the details remain private ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

SBI senior advocate Harish Salve appeared before the bank and said the bank had followed the SOP to store information on the electoral bonds scheme outside the core banking system. “We need more time to comply with the order. We are working hard to collate the information and we have to reverse the entire process. As a bank, we were told this should be a secret,” he said.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who heads the five-judge Constitution bench, noted that the donor’s details were kept under seal at the bank’s Mumbai branch.

“You have to open the seal, verify the details and provide the information,” Justice Sanjeev Khanna said.

To this, Mr Salvi replied: “I have full details of who bought the bonds, I have full details of where the funds came from and which party tendered how much. I now also have to list the names of the buyers. The names have been checked and cross-checked with the bond numbers.”

“It is considered that matching information from one silo to another is a time-consuming process. We did not ask you to conduct a matching exercise. So seeking time to say to conduct a matching exercise, which we did not ask you to conduct, is not justified Matching exercise. “You are directed to do so,” the chief justice said, directing the banks to comply with the judgment.

The Chief Justice then asked what the bank had done in the past 26 days since the judgment, noting that the bank had not yet provided this information.

“Please let us know what matches you have made in the past 26 days. SBI expects a level of candor that this was expected and has been done,” he said.

Mr Salvi said the work would take another three months. “I can’t make a mistake or I’ll be sued by my donors,” he said. The senior lawyer said the process was designed to prevent leaks.

The chief justice noted that a senior official of the SBI had filed an affidavit seeking modification of the Constitutional Court’s judgment. “This is a serious problem.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, welcomed the court’s direction. “The court dismissed the application of State Bank of India and noted that according to their own affidavit, the data required by the court to be furnished by them was already available from the bank. They only had to submit the details of the donors, on one hand, and the redemption of the bonds on the other. Details of the parties, on the other hand. State Bank of India said we have to do cross-matching etc. Court said you don’t need to do cross-matching, just provide these details to the Election Commission and you have to provide it by tomorrow,” he said .

“Thereafter, they said that the SBI chairman should file an affidavit to this effect. They will not take any contempt action, but if SBI does not comply, they may have to take action,” he added. “This is a very good and strong judgment, consistent with the court’s earlier strong judgment on electoral bonds.”

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