‘SBI on notice’: What Supreme Court said in electoral bonds ruling | Top quotes

Electoral Bonds: The Supreme Court rejected SBI's plea for time extension.

In a big setback for the State Bank of India, the Supreme Court dismissed its plea seeking an extension of deadline to disclose the electoral bonds' details.

The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud during a hearing on the SBI's plea seeking more time to disclose Electoral Bonds, in New Delhi, Monday. (PTI)

The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, instructed the SBI to provide details by March 12. Furthermore, the apex court directed the Election Commission of India to compile and publish the disclosed details on its official website by 5 pm on March 15.

Here is what CJI Chandrachud-led Supreme Court bench said

• "SBI is directed to disclose the details by the close of business hours of March 12," the bench said.

• “As regards the ECI, we direct that ECI shall compile the information and publish the details on its official website no later than 5 pm on March 15,” the bench directed the poll body.

• The SBI has to just open the sealed cover, collate the details and give the information to the EC, it said, asking SBI to simply provide the details of both donors and of bonds encashed by political parties, without “matching” them.

• SC also rapped SBI asking, “In the last 26 days, what steps have you taken? Your application is silent on that.”

• In the hearing, the bench acknowledged senior advocate Harish Salve's submission, representing the SBI, that additional time was necessary for collating and matching details stored in separate branches. Salve suggested that if the matching process were eliminated, the SBI could complete the task within three weeks.

The bench clarified that it had not instructed the bank to cross-reference donor and donee details with other information.

• "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," the bench said.

• "Though we are not exercising the contempt jurisdiction, but we place SBI on notice that this court will proceed against it for wilful disobedience if it does not comply with the timelines indicated in this order," ordered the bench.

(Inputs from wires)