The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): In a recent development that has stirred controversy, the State Bank of India (SBI) has refused to disclose its standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the handling of electoral bonds, as per a Right to Information (RTI) Act response. This refusal is grounded in the exemption of “commercial confidence” under the RTI Act, despite the Supreme Court’s directive for increased transparency regarding the electoral bonds scheme.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj had filed an RTI application requesting details of the SOPs issued to SBI’s authorised branches for the sale and redemption of electoral bonds. In response, SBI cited section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts from disclosure information that involves commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property that could potentially harm the competitive position of a third party, unless it is deemed that the public interest significantly outweighs the need for confidentiality.
This move by the SBI has sparked criticism, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment that deemed the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional. The court had mandated the disclosure of all details related to the purchase and redemption of electoral bonds, including the identity of the purchasers and the amounts involved. Despite this, SBI’s decision to withhold SOPs underlines ongoing challenges in ensuring transparency in political funding mechanisms.
The electoral bonds scheme, introduced by the government, was intended to provide anonymity to donors of political parties, thereby sparking a wide-ranging debate on transparency versus privacy in political donations. The Supreme Court’s verdict to scrap the scheme and call for the disclosure of bond details was seen as a significant step towards transparency in political financing.
Bhardwaj’s request for the SOPs aimed to uncover the official guidelines that dictate the management of electoral bonds, including the specifics of information storage and maintenance by the bank. The denial of this information raises questions about the operational aspects of the scheme and the mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
As the situation unfolds, the debate over the electoral bonds scheme and the balance between commercial confidentiality and public interest in political financing continues to evolve. The SBI’s stance highlights the complexities involved in navigating legal, commercial, and ethical considerations in the disclosure of politically sensitive information.
