Supreme Court Dismisses SBI's 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 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...

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

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

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

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers