SBI Wanted 3 Months To Give Poll Bonds Info, Court Sets 24-Hour Deadline

Turning down the State Bank of India's (SBI) request for more time to disclose details of the electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court today said the bank must share the details with the Election Commission of India (ECI) by tomorrow. The poll body has been asked to publish the details on its website by 5 pm on Friday.

The court also warned that it will initiate contempt proceedings against the government-run bank if it does not provide the information by tomorrow.

Earlier, hearing SBI's request for more time to provide details of the now-scrapped scheme, the Supreme Court fielded tough questions and asked what the bank has done for the past 26 days. The SBI had approached the court for an extension, allowing it to disclose the details by June 30.

The court had, in a landmark verdict on February 15, scrapped the electoral bonds scheme and directed the Election Commission to make the details of donation public by March 13.

The SBI's plea for more time was opposed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which was among the petitioners who had challenged the electoral bonds scheme brought by the Narendra Modi government in 2017. The ADR had said the application has been filed at the last moment to ensure the details are not public before the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

Appearing for SBI, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said the bank had followed an SOP to store information about the electoral bonds scheme outside the core banking system. "We need a little more time to comply with the order. We are trying to collate the info and we are having to reverse the entire process. We as a bank were told that this is supposed to be a secret," he said.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who led the five-judge Constitution bench, noted that it was submitted that the donor details were kept in sealed cover in a Mumbai branch of the bank.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, "You have to just open the sealed cover, collate the details and give the information."

To this, Mr Salve replied, "I have full details on who purchased the bond and I have full details from where the money came from and which political party tendered how much. I have to also now put the name of purchasers. The names have to be collated, crosschecked with the bond numbers."

"It is submitted that matching information from one silo to another is a time-consuming process. We have not asked you to do the matching exercise. So to seek time saying that a matching exercise is to be done is not warranted, we have not directed you to do that," the Chief Justice said, directing the bank to comply with the judgment.

The Chief Justice then asked what work the bank has done in the past 26 days since the verdict and noted that the bank has not provided this information.

"Please tell what matching you have done in the last 26 days. There is a degree of candour expected from SBI as to this is the work which was expected and this has been done," he said.

Mr Salve said the job will take three more months. "I cannot make a mistake, else I will be sued by donors," he said. The senior lawyer said the process was designed to prevent leaks.

The Chief Justice noted that a senior official of SBI had filed an affidavit, seeking modifications to the Constitution bench's judgment. "This is a serious issue."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the ADR, welcomed the court's directions. "The court has dismissed the application of State Bank of India, pointing out that the data that the court had asked them to give is already available with the bank, according to their own affidavit. They have to just submit the details of the donors, on one hand, and the details of the parties which redeemed the bonds, on the other. State Bank of India was saying we have to do cross-matching etc. The court has said you don't need to do cross-matching, just give these details to the Election Commission and you have to give it by tomorrow," he said.

"Thereafter, they have said the SBI chairman should file an affidavit to this effect. They are not taking any contempt action, but they may have to if the SBI doesn't comply," he added. "It's a very good, strong judgment in consonance with the earlier strong judgment the court had given on electoral bonds."

In its February 15 judgment, the Supreme Court held the electoral bonds scheme "unconstitutional" and said it violates the citizens' right to information.