![[Electoral Bond Data] SBI Refuses to Disclose Data Under RTI Act](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-23.png?resize=447%2C269&ssl=1)
On Wednesday (10th April): The State Bank of India (SBI) refused to disclose electoral bond data under the RTI Act, citing exemptions related to fiduciary capacity and public interest. This refusal, including the denial of information about the payment to lawyer Harish Salve, has raised concerns about transparency and accountability, undermining democratic principles and public interest. The case may reflect future changes in RTI Act exemptions under the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of the electoral bonds scheme highlights the balance between privacy and transparency in political funding. The decision emphasizes the crucial role of judicial review in safeguarding fundamental rights and underscores the significance of public access to information about political contributions. This ruling signifies the evolving nature of law and democracy.
Today (18th March): During the hearing, advocate Mathews Nedumpara claimed that the citizens were unaware of the entire judgment in the Electoral Bond case. NEW DELHI: Today (March 18th): During the hearing concerning the Electoral Bond case, a heated verbal exchange between Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and advocate Mathews Nedumpara, creating waves on social media. […]
On sunday (17th March): The Election Commission of India disclosed details about electoral bonds, revealing significant financial flows to political parties. The data lacks donor identities, maintaining anonymity in political funding. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling challenges the secrecy of the scheme and advocates for more transparency in political party funding, sparking discussions about regulation.
Former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg highlighted that while the State Bank of India (SBI) had access to details such as who bought electoral bonds and when, matching each bond with its recipient party was deemed impossible. He criticized SBI’s request to the Supreme Court for more time to provide data as a “cooked up […]
The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, will hear SBI’s plea on March 11 for an extension until June 30 to disclose electoral bond details from April 2019. This plea has implications for political funding transparency. The court will also address a contempt plea filed by ADR. The complexity of tracking and reporting these financial instruments is underscored.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a contempt petition Today against the State Bank of India (SBI) for seeking an extension to disclose electoral bond details. This defiance of Supreme Court’s order and the ensuing legal battle reflects the struggle for transparency in political funding, with far-reaching implications for India’s political and financial systems.
Answers to Why State Bank of India (SBI) has requested an extension until June 30 to disclose the identities of Electoral Bond donors to the Election Commission, postponing the disclosure until after the Lok Sabha elections in April-May, are here. SBI outlined logistical challenges, highlighting the complexities involved in complying with the Supreme Court’s directive, emphasizing transparency while safeguarding donor anonymity.
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict in the high-profile case involving allegations by US-based short-selling firm Hindenburg Research against the Adani group of companies. The allegations, which accused Adani of stock market regulation violations, led to a significant drop in the group’s share value. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India […]