Apex Court Directs SBI To Disclose All Data On Electoral Bonds; Asks SBI Chairman To File Affidavit On Or Before 5 pm On March 21

The Supreme Court today asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all the data available with it on the Electoral Bonds.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice of DY Chandrachud also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI to file an Affidavit before it stating that all the details available with them regarding the Electoral Bonds have been disclosed.

"..There is no manner of doubt that the SBI is required to furnish all details available with it. This, we clarify, will include the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds purchased. In order to fully effacuate the Order and to avoid any controversy in the future, we direct the Chairman and Managing Director, SBI shall file an Affidavit on or before 5pm on Thursday (March 21) indicating that SBI has disclosed all details of the Electoral Bonds which were in its position and custody and that no details have been withheld from disclosure," the Court ordered.

It further directed the Election Commission to upload the details forthwith upon communication by the SBI.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for the SBI, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.

At the outset, the CJI said, "In the judgment that we had delivered, we had expressly asked the SBI to disclose all details. The language of the judgment was all details. Therefore, that includes the bond numbers as well. Let SBI not be selective in the disclosure of details. We intent to clarify that it should disclose all details including the bond number and every part of the information in its possession or custody. Don't wait for an order of the Court. We bang it on the fact the State Bank of India would be candid and fair to the Court."

To this, Salve submitted, "We can disclose the bond numbers. Whatever the Lordships say, we have no problem."

"SBI's attitude appears to be you tell us to disclose a particular detail, and we will disclose it. That's not fair," the CJI remarked.

The Senior Counsel appearing for SBI also submitted that the Judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench is one of the leading judgments on the subject on transparency, voter's rights and balancing democracy, balancing the competing virtues of minimising the role of money, while recognising the role of money. "The one this the Lordships judgment was not meant for and designed for is to give birth once again to one dormant PIL industry, which will now go after each industrialist and say please investigate this, investigate this, investigate that. The idea is the voter should know which is absolutely...the voter knowing is one thing, but the judgment is not meant for please investigate this, investigate this, investigate that and your Lordhips may see whatever safeguards need to be put in place," he added.

SG Mehta submitted, "At the outset on behalf of the Central Government...I have been watching this very painfully outside the Court. Your Lordships, sit in silos, in an ivory tower, not in a negative sense but we know here your lordships, never come to know. The way in which your Lordships judgment is playing out, something you must be informed as the highest Court of the country. What has happened is, our case was that we wanted to curb the black money, a criminal may have made the donation but ultimately the donation comes in the white economy and we could not persuade. Judgment was passed...now the witch hunting has started at some other level not at the governmental level."

The SG stated that after the SBI filed its Application seeking an extension by four months, most serious things started happening thereafter. "Those before the Court started giving press interviews deliberately embarrassing the Court and there is a non-level playing field. This side nobody can rebut that, neither the government can do, nor State can do, nobody else can do. Thereafter, a series of social media posts, at least intended to cause embarrassment, started during these two days....Now based on the twisted statistics any kind of posts are being made," he added.

Mehta requested the Bench to issue directions, which has a necessary and inevitable fallout.

However, the CJI said, "We are only concerned about enforcing the directions we issued in Clauses b and c of Para 221. As Judges we decide according to the Constitution, We are governed by the Rule of Law also, we are the subject matter of comment in the social media and the press. Surely as an institution, our shoulders are broadened up. A Court has an instuitutional role to play in a polity which is governed by the Constitution. That's the only job."

The SG clarified, "My purpose is to inform your lordships, that there is something else playing out which neither your Lordships intended nor the scheme intended...We thought we were ad idem, that this information would help the voter to take a call whether to vote in favour of a particular party of not..."

After hearing the matter at length, the Bench ordered the SBI to disclose all details available with it and file an Affidavit stating the same has been done on or before 5 pm on March 21.

Meanwhile, an Interlocutory Application has been filed by 'Citizens Right Trust' seeking disclosure of details of electoral bonds sold from March 1, 2018 to April 11, 2019. The Trust states that the voters are entitled to know the funding to the political parties by the Electoral Bond for the entire period. It has also submitted that 9,159 bonds worth Rs. 4,002 crore have been sold between March 2018 and April 2019, which should be disclosed.

The Application further states that once the entire Electoral Bond Scheme is held to be violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the citizens are entitled to know the details of the donor and donee of the entire period from March 2018 onwards (the date when the scheme became functional), and the data available on the platform of the Election Commission represents only 76% of the total bonds, and the voters are not aware of the details of the remaining 24% of the Electoral Bonds.

However, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the Trust, informed the Bench today that, in view of the directions passed by the Court, he is not pressing the Application.

Pertinently, on March 15, while hearing an Application filed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) seeking modification of the operative portion of its March 11, 2024, order in the electoral bonds case, the Court had agreed to return the original documents to ECI by March 16, 5 pm.

The Bench has also issued notice to SBI for the non-disclosure of Electoral Bond numbers.

On March 13, the State Bank of India (SBI) had filed an Affidavit before the Court stating that it had disclosed information regarding the acquisition and redemption of electoral bonds up to February 15, 2024. The affidavit had been filed in compliance with the order dated March 11, 2024, a day after it sent all details of electoral bonds to the ECI as directed by the Apex Court.

The SBI had filed the electoral bond data after the Apex Court rejected its plea seeking an extension of time to disclose the details. While dismissing the application for extension of time by the SBI, the Bench had held that the details of purchased Bonds are "readily available".

The Court had also held that information about Electoral Bonds is stored only in 29 branches which can easily be accessed. Accordingly, the Court had directed SBI to disclose the information by the end of business hours on March 12. It had also directed ECI to publish the information by March 15 by 5 pm. The Court had said that it will consider contempt petitions if the latest directions are not complied with.

The 5-Judge Constitutional Bench, while pronouncing the judgment on February 15, 2023, in the batch of four pleas, including those filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the CPI(M) had directed: "SBI shall submit the above information to the ECI within 3 weeks from the date of this judgment, i.e., March 6, 2024."

In the Judgment, there are two opinions of the Court, one by CJI himself and Justice Gavai, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Misra and another authored by Justice Khanna. However, both arrive at the same conclusion with slight variance in reasoning.

The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding. According to the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be purchased by any citizen of India or entity incorporated or established in India. An individual can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly with other individuals.

Cause Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors. & Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 209)