The State Bank of India (SBI) finds itself at the center of a legal tussle as it seeks an extension until June 30 to disclose details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India. Scheduled for March 11, the Supreme Court will deliberate on SBI's request, coinciding with a contempt petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) against the bank's alleged non-compliance with a previous court order.

At the helm of this legal battle is a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The bench is set to assess SBI's appeal alongside ADR's contempt petition, reflecting the complex dynamics surrounding electoral financing in India.

The genesis of this legal saga traces back to a directive issued by the Supreme Court, tasking SBI with divulging details of political parties benefiting from electoral bonds since April 12, 2019. However, SBI failed to meet the prescribed deadline, prompting its application for an extended timeframe.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, emphasized the urgency of addressing their contempt plea, underscoring SBI's purported deliberate non-compliance with the court's order. Bhushan's assertion suggests a growing frustration with the opacity surrounding electoral funding mechanisms, especially in light of impending elections.

ADR's contempt petition alleges SBI's last-minute application for an extension as a strategic maneuver to withhold crucial information from the public domain. The timing of SBI's filing, just days before the deadline, raises suspicions of an intentional effort to obscure donor details ahead of crucial electoral events.

In response, ADR contends that SBI's actions not only flout the court's directives but also undermine the democratic principles of transparency and accountability. The organization's plea underscores the broader implications of electoral finance on citizens' right to information and the integrity of the electoral process.