SC rejects SBI’s extension plea, directs to submit electoral bonds details by tomorrow
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK New Delhi, March 11: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench rejected the State Bank of India’s request…
Image: OpIndia
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, March 11: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench rejected the State Bank of India’s request for additional time on Monday and mandated it to provide the details of electoral bonds by the end of business hours on March 12 to the Election Commission.
The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra also mandated the Election Commission to release the information provided by the bank on its official website by 5 pm on March 15th.
The bench also addressed a petition calling for action to be taken against SBI for contempt of court due to its failure to meet the deadline set by the court.
The State Bank of India was given until March 6 to reveal information to the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Lok Sabha elections. This directive followed the annulment of the electoral bonds scheme on February 15.
The Supreme Court deemed the scheme, which permitted anonymous political financing, as “unconstitutional” and instructed SBI to disclose details of donors, recipients, and their respective contributions since April 12, 2019.
Also Read- Jharkhand Weather: Dry weather, max temp to rise by 3-5º Celsius in next four days
SBI sought extension due to complex matching process
On March 4, SBI appealed to the Supreme Court to extend the deadline until June 30 for disclosing the details of electoral bonds cashed by political parties.
The bank pointed out that the process of matching donations to donors was intricate due to stringent measures implemented to preserve anonymity within the scheme.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing SBI, stated that the bank required extra time to furnish details of electoral bonds to the ECI, emphasizing their intent to ensure accuracy in documentation.
He explained that due to the anonymity aspect of the system, the core system did not contain names, as KYC details were not digitally stored. Consequently, information regarding the donor and recipient of purchases was stored separately and needed to be matched.
SC questions SBI’s action during last 26 days
The Supreme Court replied to the bank by stating that its instruction was for a direct disclosure of donations, rather than undertaking a “matching exercise.” The Court questioned SBI about its actions during the preceding 26 days and highlighted that all donor details were located in the same database.
Regarding the electoral bonds system, CJI cited Clause 7(4), which said that although the authorized bank would treat buyers of the bonds with secrecy, they “shall be disclosed when called upon to do so or registration of an offence by a law enforcement agency.” SBI was therefore required to provide information upon demand.
