The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): In a sharp rebuke, the Supreme Court lashed out at the State Bank of India (SBI) on Monday over its seeming reluctance to fully comply with the court’s directives on disclosing comprehensive details pertaining to the controversial electoral bonds scheme. A constitutional bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud did not mince words, asserting that the nation’s largest lender cannot engage in “duck and reeks” by withholding vital information.
The courtroom witnessed heated exchanges as the bench took umbrage at SBI’s purported attempts to selectively interpret and implement the court’s previous judgment dated 15th February 2024. That ruling had issued operative directions mandating disclosure of all information on political contributions received through electoral bonds.
Expressing palpable dismay, Justice Chandrachud questioned SBI’s approach, “SBI’s attitude appears to be, you tell us to disclose a particular detail and we will disclose it. See, that’s not fair process.” He emphatically stated that when the court directed disclosure of “all details,” it meant “every conceivable detail which is available with State Bank of India.”
The court appeared unconvinced by SBI’s explanations, with the CJI remarking pointedly, “I only want to share one thing. The court’s judgment is one of the leading judgments on the subject of transparency, voters’ rights and balancing democracy…The one thing that this judgment was not meant for, possibly, and not designed for, is to give birth once again to a now dormant PIL industry, which will go after each industrialist and say investigate this, investigate that.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, found himself caught in the crosshairs as he attempted to advocate restraint in disclosure. Mehta cautioned that unrestrained transparency could potentially “fuel a witch-hunt” and enable vicious campaigns against donors. However, the court remained unswayed, with Justice Chandrachud asserting the court’s institutional mandate to uphold constitutional principles.
As the tensions escalated, the CJI posed a pointed question to senior advocate Harish Salve, representing SBI: “Tell us in what format is the data on the purchase and redemption of electoral bonds stored by the SBI?” Salve’s response that the data was maintained in separate “silos” did little to assuage the court’s concerns.
Justice Chandrachud further probed, “While redeeming it, the only way you can ensure that it is not a forged bond is to match the alphanumeric…what is the information that you see when you scan the alphanumeric?” Salve’s admission that no such correlation existed between the bond number and purchaser details appeared to deepen the court’s misgivings about SBI’s disclosure practices.
In an extraordinary move, the court directed SBI’s Chairman and Managing Director to file an affidavit by 5 PM on Thursday, affirming the bank’s complete candor. “In order to fully effectuate the order and to obviate any controversy in the future, we direct that the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI file an affidavit…indicating that it has disclosed all details of the electoral bonds which were in its possession and custody, and that no details have been withheld from disclosure,” ordered the CJI.
Leaving no room for ambiguity, Justice Chandrachud asserted, “In other words, we now have no manner of doubt that SBI is required to make a complete disclosure of all details in its possession. This clarification would include the alphanumeric number and the serial number, if any, of the bonds which were purchased and redeemed.”
The Election Commission of India was further instructed to upload the disclosed details forthwith upon receiving the communication from SBI, reinforcing the urgent need for transparency.
The courtroom drama unfolded against the backdrop of a long-simmering debate over the contentious electoral bonds scheme. While introduced as a purported measure to curb black money in political funding, critics have lambasted it for enabling the flow of unaccounted wealth and undermining electoral integrity by shrouding donor identities.