The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the State Bank of India’s plea for extension of time till June 30 and directed it to furnish all details relating to disclosure of information relating to purchase of electoral bonds by corporates/private entities and their redemption by political parties, by March 12.

Dismissing the plea by the State Bank of India (ABI) for extension of time, a five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice S.T.

Advertisement

Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said, “The SBI shall file an affidavit of its Chairman and Managing Director on the compliance with the directors issued on February 15, 2024. We are not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction at this time, we place SBI on notice that this court may be inclined to proceed against it for wilful disobedience if SBI does not comply with the directions by the timeline indicated in this order.”

While the Constitution bench dismissed the SBI’s application, it disposed of the contempt plea by Association of Democratic Reformers and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

The court further directed the Election Commission of India to compile the information to be furnished by the SBI and publish the details on its official website no later than March 15, 2024 by 05.00 pm for public information.

The five-judge constitution bench also directed the poll panel to publish on its website the details of the electoral bonds furnished to it by different political parties in pursuance to the top court’s April 12, 2019, order.

By its April 12, 2019, interim order, the top court had directed the political parties to furnish to the Election Commission, in sealed cover, the details of the donations received through electoral bonds giving particulars – the donors of each Bond and the amount, the bank account to which the amount has been credited and the date on which each such credit was made.

The top court order directing the State Bank of India to furnish to the poll panel, the details relating to the Electoral Bonds since April 12, 2019 to February 15, 2024, by tomorrow by 05.00 PM came as it noted that a total 22,217 electoral bonds were purchased in this period and this very number of bonds were cashed by different political parties in the said duration.

It further noted that since the information about the purchasers of these electoral bonds and the their redemption/encashment by the political parties are being stored two different silos the total entries to be matched is 44,434 – apparently suggesting surely not a big task for the country’s primer number one bank.

The court also noted that it had passed the directions on February 15, 2024 and in the last 26 days till March 11, 2024, the State Bank of Indf0a must have carried out some exercise to comply with its direction.

The bench noted that there was no indication in the March 4, 2024, application of the extent to which its direction has been careened out.

“On last 26 days what matching of the electoral bonds purchased and their redemption by the political parties have taken place. There is a degree of candour on the part of the bank”, CJI Chandrachud asked, referring to no the mention in the SBI’s application.

The bench also noted that the application seeking the extension of time was filed on March 4 – just two days before the expiry of the March 6 deadline by which the State Bank of India was mandated to make available the information relating to 22, 217 Electoral Bonds to the Election Commission of India for compiling and publishing it on its website by March 13, 2024.

Appearing for the State Bank of India, senior advocate Harish Salve told the bench that the matching of each bond purchased and its matching by the political party that had encashed it is a time-consuming exercise that is why the SBI has sought “a little time” more to go it.

Telling Salve that “We have not asked you to do the matching exercise”, CJI Chandrachud asked Salve to read paragraph 10 to 14 of the SBI’s application particularly paragraph 10 and 14, that makes the February 15, 2014, direction by the Constitution bench quite clear.

Salve said that if matching was not required then SBI can do the exercise and sought three weeks’ time to do it.

As CJI told Salve that everything is linked to the ‘Know your Customer’, Justice Khanna said, “You have to open the seal cover and give the details.”

As Salve said that the SBI has to undertake the ‘matching” exercise as any error could result in the bank being sued, Justice Khanna asked, “Where is the question of the bank being sued. You are doing under our direction.”

After the order was passed, Salve wanted some clarification. At this Justice Gavai said that order was clear and has to be complied with.

The SBI had on March 4, 2024, had moved the Supreme Court seeking extension of time till June 30, 2024, to disclose the details of electoral bonds purchased, their purchasers, encashed by political parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination of the electoral bonds.

Seeking extension of time, the State Bank of India in its application had said that no centralised data of the electoral bond was maintained and it was kept in two silos, and the “…the retrieval of information from each silo and the procedure of matching the information of one silo to that of the other would be a time-consuming exercise. The details are stored separately, some of the details such as number of Bonds, etc. are stored digitally while the other set of details such as name of purchaser, KYC etc., are stored physically. The purpose of not storing all details digitally was to ensure that it cannot be gathered easily to achieve the object of the scheme.”

On the other hand, the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) on March 7, 2024, had approached the top court seeking contempt of court against the State Bank of India for not complying with February 15, 2024, direction of the top court.

In a landmark judgment that came as a jolt to ruling establishment, the Supreme Court had on February 15, 2024, struck down the Electoral Bond (EB) scheme – for the funding of the political parties – and had ruled the scheme and the amendments to the Representation of People Act, the Income Tax Act, the Companies Act and 2017 Finance Act to facilitate the scheme were unconstitutional and arbitrary.

Striking down the Electoral bond(EB) which gave anonymity to corporate buying EBs and the political parties receiving them, and holding that it was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a five-judge constitution bench had ruled “The Electoral Bond Scheme, the provision to Section 29C (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (as amended by Section 137 of Finance Act 2017), Section 182(3) of the Companies Act (as amended by Section 154 of the Finance Act 2017), and Section 13A(b) (as amended by Section 11 of Finance Act 2017) are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional.”