SBI Electoral Bonds case | 5 judge Bench to hold special sitting on plea for more time
The Chief Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench is set to address a plea against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged contempt in the electoral bonds case. The plea accuses the SBI of deliberately disobeying the Supreme Court's order to provide details of political contributions via electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. This directive followed the bench's decision to declare the anonymous political funding scheme unconstitutional on February 15.
The SBI, the authorized financial institution under the electoral bond scheme, failed to meet the March 6 deadline and subsequently requested an extension until June 30. The bank argued that retrieving information from various sources and cross-referencing details would be a time-consuming process. Notably, the SBI had earlier removed a document containing basic information about the purchase of electoral bonds.
In response to the SBI's non-compliance, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed a contempt petition, urging the Supreme Court to take action. Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the court that the SBI's extension request is expected to be heard on Monday, and he requested ADR's plea to be listed alongside it.
The argument against the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea for an extension centres around the accessibility of crucial information on computer records. Despite the possibility that denominations may not have been entered separately, the details of the purchaser, purchase date, and the electoral bond amount are available on the computer. Similarly, information about the depositor, the deposited amount for the electoral bond, and the deposit date are also stored digitally. This information was specifically requested by the Supreme Court.
The contention lies in the donor's name being linked to the electoral bond purchased, but lacking details about which specific bond was acquired by whom. The challenge arises because, although all bonds eventually return to the SBI, determining the purchaser or depositor of a particular bond becomes a complex task. The SBI claims it needs additional time to establish these connections, but critics argue that this is a fabricated excuse, asserting that such linkage may never be feasible.
Important points in SBI Electoral Bonds case
1. Special Sitting of Five-Judge Bench: A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is scheduled for a special sitting to address the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea regarding the electoral bonds case.
2. Contempt Action against SBI: The bench will also hear a separate plea seeking contempt action against the SBI for allegedly disobeying the Supreme Court's directive to disclose details of political contributions through electoral bonds.
3. Missed Deadline and Extension Request: The SBI was directed to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, by March 6, but it missed the deadline. The bank subsequently moved the Supreme Court on March 4, seeking an extension until June 30.
4. Unconstitutional Electoral Bonds Scheme: The five-judge constitution bench had earlier declared the Centre's electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional on February 15, leading to the directive for disclosure.
5. Complex Retrieval Process: The SBI's application for an extension argues that the retrieval of information from various sources and the matching process is time-consuming, making it challenging to meet the given deadlines.
6. Digital Record Accessibility: Critics argue that the necessary information about electoral bonds, including purchaser details, purchase dates, and amounts, as well as depositor information, is available in the computer records.
7. Donor Name Availability: The donor's name is linked to the amount of electoral bonds purchased, but the specific details of which bond was bought by whom are not available.
8. Inability to Determine Purchaser of Specific Bonds: The challenge arises from the fact that, even if a bond is accessed, determining the original purchaser or depositor becomes complicated once all bonds return to the SBI.
9. Cooked-Up Excuse Allegations: Critics dismiss the SBI's claim of needing time for making connections as a "cooked-up excuse," suggesting that the bank may never be able to establish the required linkages.
10. Contempt Petition by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): A contempt petition against the SBI was filed by ADR for not complying with the Supreme Court's directive, and it is expected to be listed alongside the SBI's extension request during the upcoming hearing.
In response to the electoral bonds case, the Centre, in its affidavit, staunchly defended the electoral bonds scheme, asserting that it was designed to foster transparency through a system incorporating validated KYC and an audit trail. The State Bank of India (SBI), as the designated financial institution, was entrusted with recording comprehensive donor information, including KYC, PAN details, and full identity and address particulars.
The SBI purportedly maintains a secret number-based record, connecting donors to purchased electoral bonds and the respective political parties receiving donations. Notably, each electoral bond is assigned a unique number, enabling traceability. The contempt petition lodged against the SBI contends that a simple database query could effortlessly generate a report in a specific format without necessitating manual verification.
The petition challenges the SBI's claim that connecting donor details to specific bonds is a time-consuming process, emphasizing the existence of a technologically sound and accessible system for managing electoral bond information. The scheme's promise of a transparent record-keeping process, coupled with the audit trail, adds an additional layer of accountability to the electoral financing mechanism.
