The Supreme Court's latest ruling in the electoral bond case saw the dismissal of the State Bank of India's (SBI) request for an extension of time to comply with previous directives regarding the disclosure of electoral bond details. The Court determined that the necessary information is already accessible to the bank and instructed it to provide the information by the end of business hours on March 12, 2024.

Just weeks after a constitution bench of the Supreme Court deemed the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, the State Bank of India (SBI), the issuing bank, was instructed to provide details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India by March 6. However, shortly before the deadline, the bank filed an application requesting an extension until June 30, citing the complexity involved in decoding and compiling data from the sale of these bonds.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, presided over the hearing of the State Bank of India's (SBI) application seeking an extension of the deadline. The bench also addressed contempt petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) against the public sector bank for its failure to disclose crucial details related to electoral bonds, despite clear directives from the Supreme Court.

During today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the State Bank of India, emphasized the difficulties encountered by the bank in reconciling donor details and redemption details, which were stored in separate information silos. He stated, "We require additional time to fully comply with the directives of Your Lordships.

In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that the court's directives did not mandate the bank to undertake a 'matching exercise', but rather to simply disclose the information. He pointed out that the bank already possessed the requisite details, as indicated by its KYC (Know Your Customer) records.

“What you are saying is that there are two different information silos and rematching them would require significant effort. But, if you see the directions we issued, we did not ask you to do this matching exercise.''

“We have the details, I am not saying we don't have them,” Salve told the court.

“We were told that this was supposed to be secret. That is how we devised the mechanism. We don't want to now create any havoc by making any mistake…” Salve argued.

“There is no question of any mistake. You have the KYC. You are the number 1 bank in the country. We expect you to handle it,” Justice Khanna countered. 

Salve acknowledged that the State Bank of India had the purchaser details but elaborated on the challenge of correlating them with the bond numbers. He also highlighted that certain information was maintained in physical form rather than digitally, further complicating the task at hand.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the State Bank of India regarding its lack of disclosure regarding the progress made thus far. He pointed out, "Our judgment was issued on February 15. Today, it is March 11. In the last 26 days, what is the extent of matching done by you? The affidavit is silent on this. We expect a degree of candor from the State Bank of India."

The senior counsel assured the court that details regarding the progress would be documented and presented to the court in the form of an affidavit.

The State Bank of India has been asked to provide comprehensive information regarding electoral bonds. This encompasses a range of details, such as the purchase date, purchaser's name, and denomination of each electoral bond. Furthermore, the court has also requested information on the encashment of electoral bonds by political parties, including the dates of such transactions.

"Political parties have already given the details of the encashment made by them. Purchasers details are already available," Justice Khanna pointed out.

"Alright, we'll dictate a short order," Chief Justice Chandrachud indicated. At this juncture, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR and Common Cause, attempted to interject. The chief justice stopped him, saying, "After we dictate the order, if something remains, you can then make your submission."

Case Brief -

On Thursday, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR and Common Cause, requested an expedited hearing for their contempt petition. They urged the court to schedule it alongside the State Bank of India's application seeking an extension until June 30 to provide the necessary information. This application was originally set to be heard on Monday, March 11.

The contempt petition claims deliberate defiance by the State Bank of India (SBI) and calls for the commencement of contempt proceedings. ADR and Common Cause assert that the bank's request for an extension is 'mala fide', indicating bad faith, and is seen as an attempt to obstruct transparency efforts leading up to the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections.

They argue that the State Bank of India (SBI) has the required infrastructure to promptly compile and disclose information regarding electoral bonds. ADR and Common Cause highlight the existence of the bank's IT system specifically tailored for managing these bonds as evidence supporting their claim.

In addition, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has filed a contempt petition against the State Bank of India (SBI). Joining the two non-profit organizations that initially approached the apex court, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was also among the original petitioners in the electoral bonds case.

On February 15, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, ruling it unconstitutional. The court held that anonymous electoral bonds contravene the right to information guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

While the court reached a unanimous decision, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud delivered the lead judgment. However, Justice Khanna authored a concurring opinion, providing slightly different reasoning for the decision.

Crucially, the constitution bench not only ordered the State Bank of India (SBI), the issuing bank, to cease the issuance of electoral bonds immediately but also instructed the bank to furnish the details of such bond purchases since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India within three weeks, that is, by March 6.