Today, the Supreme Court delivered a stern rebuke to the State Bank of India regarding its failure to fully disclose data about electoral bonds, a program permitting anonymous contributions to political parties by individuals and corporations. Having previously invalidated the scheme, the court-mandated the bank to divulge comprehensive information on donations made over the past five years.
Responding to a petition filed by the Election Commission, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the data provided by the bank, insisting on the inclusion of electoral bond numbers. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, issued the directive for SBI to furnish these additional details alongside the previously shared information.
“At the commencement of the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud queried, ‘Who is representing the State Bank of India? They have not revealed the bond numbers. The State Bank of India must disclose them.'”
“The Supreme Court bench, in its notification to SBI, has requested an explanation for this oversight to be provided during the upcoming hearing scheduled for March 18. The inclusion of electoral bond numbers is crucial as they facilitate the establishment of connections between donors and political entities.”
Introduced by the BJP government in 2018, electoral bonds provided a means for individuals and businesses to contribute funds to political parties discreetly, without mandatory declaration. Marketed as a replacement for cash donations, they were positioned as a measure to enhance transparency in political financing.
However, last month, the Supreme Court invalidated the scheme, citing its unconstitutionality and raising apprehensions regarding potential quid pro quo arrangements. In addition to striking down the scheme, the court directed the State Bank of India to disclose comprehensive information regarding the acquisition and redemption of these bonds to the Election Commission.
In its petition, the election commission stated that the order issued on March 11 emphasized the preservation of the documents submitted by the commission to the court in a sealed cover during the hearing, at the office of the EC.
The EC clarified that it did not retain any copies of the documents and further requested their return, enabling compliance with the court’s instructions.
