E-Paper
SC berates SBI for selective EB disclosures, seeks unique serial numbers
On Sunday, ECI uploaded all electoral bond (EB)-related documents it received from political parties in 2019 and November 2023 in sealed covers
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose the unique serial number associated with each electoral bond (EB) and all other information the bank possesses while supplying the Election Commission of India (ECI) with data about the beneficiaries and donors for public release.
However, a five-judge bench denied a request for the release of information about EBs sold before April 12, 2019—the cut-off date fixed by the court in its February 15 ruling that invalidated the EB scheme and ordered SBI to provide bond details to ECI for public viewing.
Simultaneously, the bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, refused to grant an out-of-turn hearing to industry bodies FICCI and ASSOCHAM that requested a postponement of an order requiring the disclosure of bond numbers on the grounds that EBs were donated with an assurance of anonymity and thus, they should be heard before any further order is made.
Under the 2018 EB scheme, which was quashed by the Supreme Court on February 15, each electoral bond was imprinted with a unique number that can assist in tracking the issuance and redemption of bonds, and in tracing the bond back to the purchaser. It may become feasible to match redemptions with purchases and create a one-to-one relationship if this number is supplied.
“There is no manner of doubt that SBI was required to disclose all information in its possession, which will include alphanumeric numbers and serial numbers. In order to obviate any controversy in the future and to give full effect to our judgment dated February 15, 2024, the chairperson of the bank shall file an affidavit by 5 pm on Thursday [March 21] that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld,” directed the bench. It added that as soon as ECI receives the information from SBI, it will post it on its website “forthwith”.
The date of purchase or redemption, the recipient’s or buyer’s name, and the denomination are among the “all details” that the February 15 ruling required SBI to reveal, the court said. “The word ‘including’ indicates that the information provided in the ruling is illustrative rather than exhaustive,” said the bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
According to data released by ECI on March 14 and 17, EBs valued at ₹16,492 crore were redeemed in 30 phases of their sale between March 1, 2018, and January 11, 2024. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) redeemed 50% of them for ₹8,252 crore. The Congress accounted for 11.8% ( ₹1,952 crore) while the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) accounted for 10.4% ( ₹1,708 crore). Before the 2019 elections, the BJP gained the most, having redeemed 68% ( ₹3,963 crore) of all redeemed bonds, as reported by HT on March 18. The Congress redeemed 12% ( ₹698 crore), and the TMC 2.6% ( ₹150 crore).
On Sunday, ECI uploaded all EB-related documents it received from political parties in 2019 and November 2023 in sealed covers, which it subsequently presented to the court. The records that were unsealed and posted on Sunday revealed that political parties were aware of the identities of the individuals and organisations that gave them money, contrary to earlier assertions that the EB scheme would guarantee that the donors’ identities remained secret from the recipients.
Eight political parties, including the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and Janata Dal (Secular), revealed the names of their donors.
During the proceedings on Monday, the court castigated SBI for not being forthcoming with the information about the unique serial numbers. “SBI can’t be selective in disclosing details. It had to be candid and fair to the court. SBI’s attitude appears to be ‘you tell us what to disclose and then only we will disclose. That’s not a fair process. As SBI chairman, he should have said ‘I would disclose all possible details in terms of the court order’...We want all information related to the electoral bonds to be disclosed which is in your possession,” the court told senior counsel Harish Salve.
Salve, representing the public sector bank, undertook that SBI shall share all the information it possesses with ECI. He pointed out that since there was already a direction to the political parties to disclose the details of EBs redeemed by them, including the unique serial numbers, SBI was under the impression that serial numbers were not required to be given again.
Disapproving of this contention, the bench replied: “Your argument appears to be banking on an interim order of this court. But that interim order merged with our February 15 judgment when we directed complete disclosure...We will now say you would disclose bond numbers but will also ask for an affidavit from you that you haven’t concealed anything. The burden should not lie on this court or the petitioners that something has not been disclosed. You disclose everything.”
Even as a further direction was issued to SBI, the court declined to expand the remit of the disclosure under the February 15 judgment, saying it would not order making public information about EBs purchased and redeemed before April 12, 2019 – when the court issued an interim order directing all political parties to submit EB data to ECI.
Senior counsel Vijay Hansaria and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for some of the petitioners, pressed for a directive to SBI to also disclose EB data for a period before April 12, 2019, to facilitate a full disclosure. He argued that details of EBs sold since March 1, 2018, should also be disclosed by SBI to ECI for public revelation.
But the bench said: “In our judgment, we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be the date of our interim order [April 12, 2019]. We took that date because it was our considered view that once that interim order was pronounced, everybody was put on notice. If we have to go back to any earlier date, it will become a substantive modification of the judgment and will require a review of this judgment. This cannot be done in a miscellaneous application,” said the court, rejecting the plea.
Bhushan requested the court to consider issuing a directive to all the political parties to furnish information about their donors, but the bench refrained from commenting on the plea.
During the hearing, the court refused to entertain a plea by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented FICCI and ASSOCHAM while pressing for a deferment of the disclosure of the bond numbers since the industry bodies wanted to be heard.
The court told Rohatgi: “We have no such application on board. You file an application and then we will see. The whole world knew about the pendency of these proceedings. You have chosen to come now after the judgment is delivered. File an application and we will consider it.”
When Rohatgi questioned how information could be requested to be revealed when anonymity was guaranteed as a part of the EB scheme, the bench retorted: “Mr Rohatgi, there is only one answer. With effect from April 12, 2019, we directed the collection of details. Everyone was put on notice at the time. This is why we did not ask for the disclosure of the bonds sold prior to this interim order. This was a conscious decision by all the five judges on this bench.”
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta and Salve questioned the motives of some of the PIL petitioners in the case. While Salve contended that though the emphasis of the court’s judgment was on the voters’ right to know, it was being exploited by some of the petitioners to target the public sector institutions such as SBI and industrialists.
Mehta complained: “How this court’s judgment is playing out is something which it must be informed of…Now the witch-hunting has started at some other level, not at the government level. Those before the court have started giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the court. A barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment has started. Statistics can be twisted in any manner. Based on twisted statistics, all kinds of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction…”
The bench replied that it is only concerned about enforcing the directions contained in its February 15 judgment. “As judges, we decide according to the Constitution. We are governed by the rule of law. We are also subject matters of comments in social media and the press but surely, as an institution, our shoulders are broad enough. Our court has an institutional role to play in a polity that is governed by the Constitution and the rule of law. That’s the only job we have,” it said.
Mehta also distanced himself and the Centre from a letter written by senior advocate and bar leader Adish C Aggarwala last week, urging the CJI to review the Supreme Court’s order directing the poll panel to post the EB information provided by SBI on its official website. “We disassociate ourselves from this letter. This is not the manner in which we have understood the judgment,” Mehta added, earning commendation from the bench, which earlier cautioned Aggarwala from arguing in favour of his latter.
Turning to Aggarwala, the court said: “Apart from being a senior counsel, you are also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. You have written to me and released the letter. This is all publicity-oriented and we will not permit it. Please, leave it at that or we will have to say something which might be distasteful.”
The court on February 15 struck down the Centre’s 2018 EB scheme of political funding, declaring it to be “unconstitutional” because it completely anonymised contributions made to political parties. The court said that restricting black money or illegal election financing—some of the articulated objectives of the scheme—did not justify violating voters’ right to information in a disproportionate manner. The court ordered full disclosure of EBs purchased and those redeemed.
SBI this month approached the court with a plea for granting it time until June 30 to submit details of EBs purchased since April 12, 2019, arguing that “decoding” the data and matching donors to recipients would be a “complex process”. On March 11, the court rejected SBI’s plea, noting that the required information was “readily available” with the bank, and giving it time until the business hours of March 12 to do so.
On March 13, the SBI chairman filed his affidavit of compliance in the Supreme Court, informing it that the entire details of EBs purchased since April 1, 2019, have been submitted to ECI by the deadline.
