Supreme Court directs SBI to reveal all electoral bond data by March 21
Supreme Court orders SBI to reveal unique serial numbers of electoral bonds, beneficiaries, and donors data for public release.
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 bond beneficiaries and donors for public release – a move that potentially enables a correlation of the two.
However, the 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 (CJI) 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, each electoral bond is 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 5pm on Thursday (March 21) that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld,” directed the bench. It further stated 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, according to the court. “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 around 50% of them ( ₹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). Prior to the 2019 elections, the BJP received the maximum amount through EBs, 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 redeemed 2.6% ( ₹150 crore).
Read more: ‘Don’t shout at me': CJI DY Chandrachud chides lawyer during electoral bonds hearing
On Sunday, ECI further uploaded all EB-related documents that it received from political parties in 2019 and November 2023 in sealed covers, which it had subsequently presented to the top court. The records revealed that some political parties were aware of the identities of the individuals and organisations that gave them money, contrary to earlier assertions that 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 names of their donors. The BJP, which received the maximum amount through EBs, however, said it had no information on the 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.
Read more: Electoral Bonds: Supreme Court rebukes SBI, says don't be ‘selective’
Salve, representing the state-owned 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 an 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 in 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 for also disclosing EB data for a period prior to 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.
Read more: Electoral bonds: A key poll plank for anti-BJP forces
But the bench remained indisposed. “In our judgment, we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be 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 further 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 also 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.”
The proceedings on Monday also witnesses solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Salve questioning 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 SBI and the donors.
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 upon twisted statistics, all kinds of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction…”
The bench, however, 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.
