Supreme Court Dismisses SBI's Plea For Extension Of Time For Furnishing Electoral Bonds Details; Directs Disclosure By March 12

Awstika Das

11 March 2024 6:24 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Dismisses SBIs Plea For Extension Of Time For Furnishing Electoral Bonds Details; Directs Disclosure By March 12

    In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) dismissed an application for extension of time filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) for complying with the court's earlier directions to furnish electoral bonds details. Concluding that the requisite information is sufficiently available with the bank, the court asked it to disclose the information...

    In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) dismissed an application for extension of time filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) for complying with the court's earlier directions to furnish electoral bonds details. Concluding that the requisite information is sufficiently available with the bank, the court asked it to disclose the information by the close of business hours of March 12, 2024.

    This move comes less than a month a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, while declaring the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, directed the issuing bank, i.e., State Bank of India to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India by March 6. However, days before the deadline, the bank filed an application seeking an extension till June 30, citing the complexity of decoding and compiling data from the sale of these bonds.

    A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing SBI's application for an extension of the deadline, along with contempt petitions filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) against the public sector bank over its non-disclosure of vital details related to electoral bonds despite the Supreme Court's directives to that effect. 

    Today, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State Bank of India highlighted the challenge faced by the bank in reconciling donor details and redemption details, which were stored in separate information silos. He said, “We need a little more time to comply with Your Lordships' order.”

    In response to this, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the court's directions did not require the bank to conduct a 'matching exercise' but simply to disclose the information. The chief justice also noted that the bank had all the necessary details, as evidenced by its KYC records.

    “What you are saying is that there are two different information silos and rematching them would require significant effort. But, if you see the directions we issued, we did not ask you to do this matching exercise. We have simply directed plain disclosure. The grounds on which you seek additional time do not accord at all with the directions we issued.”

    “We have the details, I am not saying we don't have them,” Salve told the court, before reiterating that the difficulty was caused because of the siloisation of the information recorded by the State Bank of India.

    “We were told that this was supposed to be secret. That is how we devised the mechanism. We don't want to now create any havoc by making any mistake…” Salve argued.

    “There is no question of any mistake. You have the KYC. You are the number 1 bank in the country. We expect you to handle it,” Justice Khanna countered. He also pointed to paragraph 10 of the SBI's submissions, which indicated that all purchasing details were kept in a sealed cover at the main branch.

    The judge then suggested a straightforward solution: “Simply open up the sealed cover, collate the names, and furnish the details.”

    Salve acknowledged that the SBI had the purchaser details but explained the difficulty in matching them with the bond numbers. Apart from this, he mentioned that some of the information was kept physically, not digitally, compounding the difficulty of the task.

    During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud also questioned the State Bank of India over its non-disclosure of the progress made so far. "Our judgment was issued on February 15. Today, it is March 11. In the last 26 days, what is the extent of matching done by you? The affidavit is silent on this. We expect a degree of candour from the State Bank of India."

    The senior counsel assured the court that the details relating to the progress would be placed on record in an affidavit. He also suggested a 'way around', saying, "In the order, there are two parts - B and C. If you don't want to create a bridge between B and C, i.e., if there is no requirement to link the purchaser details with the parties, we can give everything within three weeks. The trouble is we thought we had to give a complete correlation..."

    The details sought from the SBI on one hand include the date of purchase of each electoral bond, the name of the purchaser of the bond, and the denomination of the electoral bond purchased. On the other, details of each electoral bonds encashed by the political parties, including the date of such encashment, were also asked to be disclosed.

    "Political parties have already given the details of the encashment made by them. Purchasers details are already available," Justice Khanna pointed out. 

    "Alright, we'll dictate a short order," Chief Justice Chandrachud indicated. At this juncture, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR and Common Cause, attempted to interject. The chief justice stopped him, saying, "After we dictate the order, if something remains, you can then make your submission."

    Then, Chief Justice Chandrachud proceeded to pronounce an order dismissing the plea filed by the State Bank of India, remarking that its submissions "sufficiently indicate that the information is readily available". Accordingly, the bank has been asked to furnish the details by the close of business hours tomorrow, i.e., March 12. The order reads -

    "...What has to be analysed is whether the State Bank of India is justified in seeking an extension of time. The crux of their submission is that the matching of information to ascertain who contributed to which political party is a time-consuming process since the information is maintained in two separate silos. Now, the operative direction which has been issued by this court as reproduced earlier was for a disclosure by the State Bank of the transactions. The State Bank of India has submitted that the donor details and redemption details are available, albeit in separate silos. In other words, the direction issued by this court requires the bank to disclose information which is already available with it. At this point, it would be apposite to refer to the FAQs on electoral bonds, which state that Know-Your-Customer (KYC) documents must be submitted by the purchaser each time the bond is purchased irrespective of whether the purchaser has a KYC-verified SBI account. Thus, the details of the bonds which have been purchased are readily available. Similarly, the FAQs with respect to redemption of bonds state that each political party can only open one current account for electoral bond redemption in any of the 29 designated branches. Therefore, information about political parties will be stored in these branches which would be clearly accessible. The submissions of the State Bank of India sufficiently indicate that the information is readily available.
    In view of the above discussion, SBI's miscellaneous application seeking an extension of time until June 30 is dismissed. The State Bank is directed to disclose the details by the close of business hours of March 12, 2024. As regards the Election Commission of India, we direct them to compile the information and publish the information on their website no later than by 5 PM on March 15, 2024."

    While refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against the State Bank of India at the moment, the court cautioned the bank that it would proceed against it for wilfully disobeying its order in the event of non-compliance with the latest directions. Chief Justice Chandrachud added to the order, "The State Bank of India shall file an affidavit of its chairperson and managing director on compliance with the directions issued above. While we are not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction at this time, we place the State Bank of India on notice that this court may be inclined to proceed against it for wilful disobedience if it does not comply with the timelines indicated in this order."

    In addition to this, the five-judge bench also asked the Election Commission of India to publish the details of the information supplied to the court in pursuance of its interim order, on the commission's website. By this interim order issued in November last year, the court had asked the ECI to furnish in a sealed cover details of the funds received by all the political parties through electoral bonds till September 30.

    "Whatever the Election Commission of India has placed before us, we'll open it. In pursuance of an interim order, the Election Commission had furnished details. The registry has placed it in secured custody. We will direct them to open it right now," Chief Justice Chandrachud indicated during the hearing. 

    Background

    This Thursday, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR and Common Cause, sought an urgent hearing for their contempt petition, urging the court to list it with the SBI's application seeking an extension of time till June 30 to furnish the requisite information, which was scheduled to be heard on Monday, March 11. This contempt petition alleges deliberate defiance on the part of the SBI and seeks the initiation of contempt proceedings. ADR and Common Cause argue that the bank's request for an extension is 'mala fide' and an attempt to thwart transparency efforts ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. They contend that the SBI possesses the necessary infrastructure to swiftly compile and disclose information on electoral bonds, pointing to the bank's IT system designed for managing these bonds.

    Following this, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) also filing a contempt petition against the SBI. Along with the two non-profits that moved the apex court, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was also one of the original petitioners in the electoral bonds case.

    On February 15, a Supreme Court constitution bench struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional, holding that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. While the court arrived at an unanimous decision, with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud delivering the lead judgment, Justice Khanna has penned a concurring opinion with a slightly different reasoning. Importantly, not only did the constitution bench direct the issuing bank, i.e., SBI to immediately stop issuing electoral bonds, but it also directed the bank to submit the details of such bonds purchases since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019 to the Election Commission of India within three weeks, i.e., by March 6.

    Case Details

    1. State Bank of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. | MA 486 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017

    2. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Khara | Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 138 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017

    3. Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Dinesh Kumar Khara | Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2018

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Next Story