Supreme Court Orders SBI to Provide Complete Electoral Bond Disclosure by March 21: A Landmark Decision

New Delhi, 18-03-2024 : In a stern rebuke to the State Bank of India, the Supreme Court directed the institution to cease its selective approach and furnish complete details pertaining to the electoral bonds scheme by March 21.

The Apex Court emphasized the necessity for disclosure of unique bond numbers, crucial for establishing the connection between bond purchasers and recipient political parties. A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, affirmed the unequivocal obligation on the SBI to divulge all relevant information within its possession. The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, mandated the prompt upload of these details by the Election Commission onto its website. Following a landmark verdict that invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, the Court had mandated disclosure of donors, their contributions, and the recipients by March 13. On March 11, the SBI, seeking an extension until June 30, faced probing inquiries from the Court regarding its compliance with directives. Last Friday, the Court chastised the SBI for furnishing incomplete data and issued a notice demanding an explanation for the absence of unique alphanumeric identifiers. During the recent proceedings, senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the SBI, assured the bench of the bank’s willingness to disclose all pertinent electoral bond details.

To ensure compliance, the bench instructed the SBI Chairman and Managing Director to submit an affidavit by 5 pm on March 21, affirming full disclosure and absence of withholding. Furthermore, the bench stressed the importance of divulging all conceivable electoral bond information, including bond numbers, to prevent selective disclosure. Refusing to entertain unlisted pleas from industry bodies such as ASSOCHAM and CII, the bench dismissed calls for an urgent hearing on interim applications opposing bond detail disclosure. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner NGO, highlighted the absence of donor details from major political parties, underscoring the need for transparency. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered these claims, accusing sponsored NGOs of manipulating facts, while expressing concerns about the ensuing “witch hunt” following the verdict. Addressing a letter from SCBA President Adish C Aggarwala, seeking a suo motu review, the bench dismissed it as a publicity stunt, underscoring the need for adherence to procedural norms. Solicitor General Mehta distanced the government from Aggarwala’s letter, describing it as unwarranted and ill-advised, while stressing the government’s commitment to curbing black money.

In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud reaffirmed the judiciary’s constitutional role, emphasizing adherence to the rule of law amidst external pressures and media scrutiny. The Apex Court also declined to entertain an application seeking disclosure of electoral bond details from March 1, 2018, to April 11, 2019.