Electoral Bonds Case: Supreme Court Rejects SBI's Plea For Extension; 10 Things To Know About The Case

The Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution bench dismissed the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea for an extension until June 30 to furnish details regarding electoral bonds. The apex court has directed SBI to provide the required information by March 12, emphasizing the urgency of transparency in political funding.

Harish Salve, representing SBI, argued that while the bank could comply with the February 14 judgment by disclosing available information, more time was needed to ensure accurate matching of donor details with political parties. However, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud questioned the progress made in the last 26 days, urging SBI to be candid about the extent of work done.

Expressing concerns about potential errors in hurried disclosures, Salve emphasized the need for caution, stating, "That might create havoc, we might be sued." The Supreme Court, acknowledging SBI as the "Number 1" bank in India, emphasized the bank's responsibility in handling the task.

The court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to compile all details and upload them on their website by March 15, 2024. The disclosure includes KYC details, bond amounts, and donations received by political parties. Salve informed the court that if there was no need to establish a bridge between the two sets of information, SBI could disclose the required information within three weeks.

The dismissal of SBI's plea follows a petition filed by NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, accusing the bank of not adhering to the Supreme Court's order. The petition alleges that SBI deliberately sought an extension at the last moment to prevent the disclosure of donor details and donation amounts before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

As the legal saga unfolds, here's a comprehensive breakdown of the top 10 updates surrounding the electoral bonds case.

1. Scrapping of Electoral Bond Scheme

The Supreme Court scrapped the Electoral Bond Scheme, a vehicle for anonymous funding to political parties. Citing violations of the Right to Information (RTI) and the potential for quid pro quo, the apex court emphasized that the scheme's demise doesn't leave a void, pointing to the existence of alternative measures to curb black money.

2. Alternatives to Curb Black Money

Addressing concerns over the impact on the RTI, the Supreme Court articulated that curbing black money shouldn't come at the expense of infringing on the right to information. The court highlighted the availability of alternative solutions that achieve the goal of combating black money with minimal impact on the right to information.

3. SBI's Missed Deadline

Following the verdict, the Supreme Court instructed the State Bank of India (SBI), the authorized financial institution, to submit details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, by March 6, 2024. However, the bank failed to meet this critical deadline, leading to heightened tensions and legal complexities.

4. Detailed Disclosures Demanded

The specifics demanded by the Supreme Court included a thorough disclosure of each electoral bond encashed by political parties. This comprehensive information encompasses the date of encashment and the denomination of the electoral bond, aiming to bring transparency to the often opaque world of political funding.

5. EC's March 13 Deadline

In a bid to ensure transparency, the Election Commission (EC) was directed to publish the disclosed information on its official website by March 13. The looming question remains whether this deadline will be met, given the intricacies of the case and the missed timeline by SBI.

6. SBI's Plea for Extension

Anticipating challenges in compiling and presenting the required information, SBI, on March 4, sought an extension until June 30. The bank argued that retrieving information from various sources and matching data between silos posed a significant time-consuming challenge.

7. Complexity Due to Anonymity

SBI delved into the complexity of matching donors to donations, attributing the challenge to the anonymous nature of the electoral bond process. The bank revealed that donor details were intentionally stored in sealed covers at designated branches, underscoring the difficulty in tracing the origins of political contributions.

8. Contempt Plea by NGOs

Prominent NGOs, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause, filed a contempt plea against SBI. The plea alleges willful disobedience of the court's directives and claims a deliberate attempt to withhold donor information, particularly in the lead-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

9. Contradiction with Democracy

The contempt plea argues that the anonymity inherent in the Electoral Bond Scheme contradicts participatory democracy and citizens' right to information, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also sheds light on the traceability of electoral bonds through SBI's secret number-based records, emphasizing the potential risks to democratic processes.

10. Political Funding Insights

Revelations from the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) annual audited report submitted to the Election Commission provide a glimpse into the magnitude of electoral bonds. In the fiscal year 2022-23, the BJP received Rs 1,300 crore through electoral bonds, constituting 61 percent of its total contributions amounting to Rs 2,120 crore. Meanwhile, the Congress saw a decline in funding from electoral bonds, receiving Rs 171 crore in 2022-23, down from Rs 236 crore in the previous fiscal year.