State Bank of India (SBI) declined to reveal the details of legal fees paid to Senior Advocate Harish Salve in connection with the Electoral Bond Case. This decision came amid ongoing scrutiny and debates regarding transparency in political funding through electoral bonds. The refusal to disclose such information raises questions about the transparency and accountability of financial transactions related to significant legal matters involving public institutions and high-profile legal representatives.
New Delhi: The State Bank of India (SBI) declined to disclose the legal fees paid to Senior advocate Harish Salve for representing the bank in the electoral bonds case before the Supreme Court. This decision made in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request filed by activist Ajay Bose. Bose argues that the fees paid to the advocate funded by taxpayers and questions why SBI is refusing to share this information.
The SBI stated,
“The information requested contains details of purchasers and political parties, and therefore, cannot be disclosed as it is held in a fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”
The SBI’s refusal based on Sections 8 (1) (d), 8(1) (e), and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. These sections allow for the disclosure of information if the competent authority deems that it is in the larger public interest. Previously, the SBI also declined to disclose details about the electoral bonds, claiming that such information falls under the category of personal information held in a fiduciary capacity. The bank cited the RTI Act as the basis for withholding information related to the now-abolished electoral bonds scheme.
Read Also:Electoral Bonds Case | Chronology of Events
The RTI request in question filed by activist Commodore Lokesh Batra. Batra approached the SBI on March 13 to obtain complete digital data of the electoral bonds, as provided to the Election Commission following a Supreme Court order. Although the information is already publicly available on the Election Commission’s website, the bank refused to provide the details of the electoral bonds scheme, citing two exemptions provided under the RTI Act, section 8(1)(e) pertaining to records held in a fiduciary capacity and section 8(1)(j) allowing for the withholding of personal information.
The SBI responded,
“The information you are seeking contains details of purchasers and political parties, and therefore, cannot be disclosed as it is held in a fiduciary capacity, which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”
In response, Batra expressed that it’s “bizarre” that SBI refused to disclose the information already available in a public forum.
Ajay Bose, an activist, requested specific information regarding the legal fees paid to senior advocate Harish Salve for representing the State Bank of India (SBI) in the Supreme Court case concerning the disclosure of electoral bonds data. Bose argued that the bank’s refusal to disclose the information about Salve’s fee, which funded by taxpayers, unjustified.
On February 15, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench declared the anonymous Electoral Bonds scheme unconstitutional, stating that it violated voters’ right to information regarding the funding sources of political parties. The Court instructed the State Bank of India (SBI) to provide details of the Electoral Bonds sold and redeemed between April 12, 2019, and February 15, 2024, to the Election Commission of India by March 6, 2024.
Read Also: Electoral Bonds Judgment | In The Supreme Court
Subsequently, the SBI filed an application before the Supreme Court, represented by Senior Advocate Harish Salve, requesting an extension until June 30. However, on March 11, the Court dismissed the application and directed the SBI to disclose the information by March 12. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the SBI’s failure to disclose the unique bond numbers in the data, as without them, it would not be possible to match bond purchasers with the political parties that redeemed them. On March 18, the Court explicitly instructed the SBI to disclose all data related to the Electoral Bonds in its possession, including their unique alphanumeric numbers.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and four other judges directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all details regarding the electoral bonds, including the names of purchasers, amounts, and dates of purchase. The Chief Justice expressed dissatisfaction with the incomplete information provided by the bank, particularly after the Election Commission already released the complete list of entities that purchased the bonds for political contributions.
According to the SBI, a total of 22,217 electoral bonds of different denominations purchased by donors between April 1, 2019, and February 15, 2024. Out of these, 22,030 bonds redeemed by political parties.