Supreme Court constitution bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud will consider plea by the State Bank of India on March 11, requesting an extension until June 30 to provide information on all electoral bonds redeemed from April 2019 onwards. Additionally, a contempt plea filed by ADR will also be addressed.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, under the leadership of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is set to deliberate on a crucial plea from the State Bank of India (SBI). The plea requests an extension of the deadline until June 30 for the disclosure of details regarding all electoral bonds redeemed since April 2019. This case is of particular interest due to its implications on transparency and accountability in political funding.
Electoral bonds have been a subject of contention, sparking debates over their impact on the transparency of political contributions. As the primary bank handling these bonds, SBI’s plea for more time to compile and disclose the information has raised questions about the challenges and complexities involved in tracking and reporting these financial instruments.
The Supreme Court’s constitution bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, is scheduled to address this matter on March 11. The hearing is not only crucial for SBI but also for the broader discourse on electoral finance in India. The bench’s decision could set a precedent for how financial transparency is maintained in the context of political funding.
In addition to SBI’s request, the court will also consider a contempt plea filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). ADR, a non-profit organization committed to improving governance and electoral transparency, has been vocal about the need for clarity and openness regarding the sources of political funding. The contempt plea suggests that there has been a failure to comply with previous court orders related to the disclosure of electoral bond details, highlighting the ongoing struggle between transparency advocates and the mechanisms currently in place.
BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court had previously set a firm deadline, mandating SBI to provide all pertinent details to the Election Commission by March 6. Following this, the Election Commission was instructed to make this information available on its website by March 13, ensuring transparency and public access to the data.
SBI’s request for additional time is rooted in logistical challenges. According to the bank’s application, the information regarding the issuance and redemption of Electoral Bonds was kept in separate systems, with no unified database in place, a measure purportedly aimed at preserving donor anonymity. The bank elaborated on its procedures, stating,
“the data related to the issuance of the bond and the data related to the redemption of the bond were recorded in two different silos. No central database was maintained, ensuring donor anonymity.”
Furthermore, SBI disclosed its method of maintaining confidentiality, explaining that
“donor details were kept in a sealed cover at the designated branches, and all such sealed covers were deposited in the Main Branch of the Applicant bank, located in Mumbai.”
This process underscores the lengths to which the bank has gone to safeguard the identities of the bond purchasers.
The backdrop to this unfolding drama is the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on February 15, delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The court found that the Electoral Bonds scheme infringed upon the fundamental right of voters to information, leading to a significant ruling: the cessation of bond issuance and the directive for SBI to disclose donor details from April 12, 2019, to February 15, 2024. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s stance on the importance of transparency and the public’s right to know who funds political parties.
The State Bank of India (SBI) has outlined the complexities involved in complying with the court’s directive to disclose the details of Electoral Bond donors to the Election Commission of India. The bank’s application reveals the intricate process and logistical challenges faced, emphasizing the scale of the task at hand.
SBI’s application highlights the sheer volume of transactions, stating,
“In that time period, twenty-two thousand two hundred seventeen (22,217) electoral bonds were used for making donations to various political parties. Redeemed Bonds were deposited in the Mumbai Main Branch by the Authorized Branches at the end of each phase in sealed envelopes. With two different information silos, this would mean a total of forty-four thousand four hundred thirty-four (44,434) information sets would have to be decoded, compiled, and compared.”
The bank expressed concerns over the feasibility of the three-week deadline set by the court, arguing,
“It is respectfully submitted that the three-week timeline fixed by the court would not be sufficient for the entire exercise to be completed. Therefore, an extension of time may kindly be granted to enable the SBI to comply with the judgment.”
The application delves into the operational mechanics of the Electoral Bonds scheme, explaining how political parties are required to manage their transactions:
“Each political party was required to maintain a designated account in any of the 29 Authorized Branches. It was only in this account that electoral bonds received by that party could be deposited and redeemed. At the time of redemption, the original bond, the pay-in slip would be stored in a sealed cover and sent to the SBI Mumbai Main Branch,”
-adding further complexity to the data reconciliation process.
SBI detailed the dual nature of the data storage,
“Both sets of information were being stored independently of each other. Thus, to re-match them would be a task requiring a significant amount of effort.”
The bank also outlined the meticulous process required to align donor information with bond redemption records, stating,
“In order to make available donor information, the date of issue of each bond will have to be checked and matched against the date of purchase by a particular donor. This exercise would only deal with the first silo of information. These bonds were redeemed by the political parties in their designated bank accounts. Accordingly, this information would then have to be matched against the bond redemption information that makes up the second silo.”
The bank underscored the time-intensive nature of this task,
“It is submitted that the retrieval of information from each silo and the procedure of matching the information of one silo to that of the other would be a time-consuming exercise.”
Furthermore, SBI shed light on the rationale behind the distinct storage methods for different types of data:
“The details are stored separately; some details such as the number of bonds, etc., are stored digitally, while the other set of details such as the name of the purchaser, KYC, etc., are stored physically. The purpose of not storing all details digitally was to ensure that it cannot be gathered easily to achieve the object of the scheme.”
This comprehensive explanation provided by SBI underscores the complexities and challenges involved in meeting the Supreme Court’s directive within the stipulated timeframe, highlighting the bank’s efforts to balance transparency with the confidentiality objectives of the Electoral Bonds scheme.
As the situation develops, the Supreme Court’s response to SBI’s request for an extension remains highly anticipated. The decision will not only affect the immediate future of Electoral Bonds but also set a precedent for transparency and accountability in political financing in India.
The dual consideration of SBI’s extension request and ADR’s contempt plea underscores the complex interplay between financial institutions, the legal system, and civil society organizations in shaping the landscape of political funding in India. As the date of the hearing approaches, stakeholders from various sectors are keenly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, which could have far-reaching consequences for electoral transparency and the integrity of democratic processes in the country.
This upcoming hearing is a critical moment in the ongoing debate over electoral bonds and represents a significant step towards addressing the concerns surrounding political donations and financial transparency. The Supreme Court’s rulings on these matters will not only affect the involved parties but also set the tone for future regulations and practices in political financing in India.
CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON ELECTORAL BONDS
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
