The Supreme Court raised concerns on Friday regarding the State Bank of India (SBI) failing to provide Electoral Bonds data with unique alphanumeric numbers, essential for bond identification. Consequently, notice was issued to SBI, with a response sought by Monday.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud highlighted SBI’s non-compliance with its March 11 order, which mandated the disclosure of all Electoral Bonds details, including purchase date, purchaser name, and denomination. The bench directed the Registry to issue a notice to SBI, returnable on Monday.
Additionally, the bench granted the Election Commission of India’s request for the return of Electoral Bonds documents submitted to the court in sealed covers on two occasions. The Commission clarified that it retained no copies to maintain confidentiality and sought the sealed envelopes’ return to fulfill the court’s directive to upload data on its website.
The apex court instructed its Registrar Judicial to ensure the scanning and digitization of documents, with the originals to be returned to the ECI. The Commission would then upload the data by March 17.
During the hearing, the court emphasized SBI’s failure to disclose bond numbers and sought representation from the bank. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court to issue notice to SBI for its response.
In its February verdict, the Supreme Court invalidated the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allowed anonymous funding to political parties, and directed SBI to cease issuing Electoral Bonds immediately. The court unanimously struck down the scheme and related amendments, requiring SBI to provide details of each Electoral Bond encashed by political parties, including encashment date and denomination.
An Electoral Bond, akin to a promissory note or bearer bond, is purchasable by individuals, companies, firms, or associations of Indian citizenship or establishment. These bonds are exclusively issued for funding political parties.
Several petitions were filed challenging amendments to different statutes, alleging they facilitated unchecked political party funding.