New Delhi: In the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court today dismissed an application for extension of time filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) for complying with the court’s earlier directions to furnish electoral bonds details.
Concluding that the requisite information is sufficiently available with the bank, the court asked it to disclose the information by the close of business hours of March 12, 2024.
This move comes less than a month a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, while declaring the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, directed the issuing bank, i.e., State Bank of India to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India by March 6.
However, days before the deadline, the bank filed an application seeking an extension till June 30, citing the complexity of decoding and compiling data from the sale of these bonds.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing SBI’s application for an extension of the deadline, along with contempt petitions filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) against the public sector bank over its non-disclosure of vital details related to electoral bonds despite the Supreme Court’s directives to that effect.
Today, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State Bank of India highlighted the challenge faced by the bank in reconciling donor details and redemption details, which were stored in separate information silos. He said, “We need a little more time to comply with Your Lordships’ order.”
In response to this, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the court’s directions did not require the bank to conduct a ‘matching exercise’ but simply to disclose the information. The chief justice also noted that the bank had all the necessary details, as evidenced by its KYC 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 simply directed plain disclosure. The grounds on which you seek additional time do not accord at all with the directions we issued.”
“We have the details, I am not saying we don’t have them,” Salve told the court, before reiterating that the difficulty was caused because of the siloisation of the information recorded by the State Bank of India.
“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. He also pointed to paragraph 10 of the SBI’s submissions, which indicated that all purchasing details were kept in a sealed cover at the main branch.
The judge then suggested a straightforward solution: “Simply open up the sealed cover, collate the names, and furnish the details.”