In a significant development concerning the transparency of electoral bond transactions, the Supreme Court of India has demanded clarification from the State Bank of India (SBI) regarding the non-disclosure of unique alphanumeric numbers associated with individual electoral bonds. This demand for transparency stems from the apex court’s directive for full disclosure of electoral bond details, including purchaser information, amounts, and dates of purchase. The issue has sparked intense scrutiny and legal action, as the court presses for clarity on the handling of crucial electoral finance information.
The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized the obligation of the SBI to reveal the unique alphanumeric numbers of electoral bonds received by political parties. These numbers are crucial in identifying both the buyers of the bonds and the parties that encashed them, adding layers of accountability to political funding processes.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice pointedly questioned the SBI’s failure to disclose bond numbers despite clear directives from the court. Expressing dissatisfaction with the bank’s actions, he emphasized its duty-bound responsibility in ensuring transparency in electoral financing.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal underscored the clarity of the Supreme Court’s verdict, emphasizing the SBI’s obligation to furnish all electoral bond details to the Election Commission. Similarly, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a petitioner NGO, highlighted discrepancies in the SBI’s claims regarding the possession of bond numbers.
Supreme Courts order SBI
In response to these developments, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta clarified his representation, affirming his role on behalf of the Centre rather than the SBI. However, the bench proceeded to issue a notice to the SBI, directing it to respond to the court’s queries by March 18.
The court’s intervention follows the Election Commission’s application for a modification of its March 11 order regarding electoral bond disclosures. The EC sought the return of documents to facilitate compliance with the court’s directives for uploading data onto its website.
This legal saga underscores the ongoing efforts to uphold transparency and accountability in political funding processes. The Supreme Court’s proactive stance reflects its commitment to ensuring robust oversight and integrity in electoral finance, signaling potential reforms in the realm of campaign financing regulations. As the case unfolds, it holds the promise of significant implications for electoral transparency and accountability in India.
