Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Over SBI's Non-Disclosure Of Electoral Bonds Details

This move by the two non-governmental organisations comes amidst the ongoing battle for transparency in political funding, particularly concerning the contentious electoral bonds scheme. 

Bhushan mentioned the contempt petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing. Bhushan said that the SBI has filed an application seeking an extension of time till June 30 to furnish the information, which is likely to be listed on Monday. He requested that the contempt petition be also listed along with the SBI's application.

CJI told Bhushan to send an email request with the details of the application number.

The contempt petition filed in the apex court accuses the State Bank of India (SBI) of deliberate defiance and seeks initiation of contempt proceedings. ADR and Common Cause contend that SBI, the issuing bank of electoral bonds, has failed to furnish vital information regarding the bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) within the stipulated timeframe set by the Court. The petition, filed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's verdict on February 15, highlights the urgency of disclosing information related to electoral bonds.

What have ADR and Common Cause argued?

Last month, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had directed the State Bank of India to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India by March 6. However, days before the deadline, the bank filed an application seeking an extension till June 30, citing the complexity of decoding and compiling data from the sale of these bonds.

ADR and Common Cause's contempt petition challenges SBI's extension request, labelling it as 'mala fide' and an attempt to thwart transparency efforts before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. The organisation argues that the State Bank of India possesses the necessary infrastructure to swiftly compile and disclose information on electoral bonds. According to the two non-profits, the SBI's IT system, designed for managing electoral bonds, is already in place and can easily generate reports based on the unique numbers assigned to each bond.

The petition raises questions about SBI's claimed difficulties in compiling data, pointing out that the bank has records of the unique numbers allotted to each electoral bond and the Know Your Customer (KYC) details of purchasers. Additionally, it notes that SBI has a vast network of branches and a well-functioning IT system, making the task of compiling data for approximately 22,217 electoral bonds straightforward.

Emphasising the significance of transparency in political financing, ADR and Common Cause contend that voters have a fundamental right to know about the substantial sums of money contributed to political parties through electoral bonds. The petition argues that the lack of transparency goes against the essence of participatory democracy enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's directions, issued as part of its judgment on the electoral bonds case, aimed to bring greater transparency to political funding. Alongside halting the issuance of electoral bonds, the apex court mandated that SBI disclose details of bond purchasers and political parties that received contributions through electoral bonds. These details were to be published by the Election Commission on its website by March 13, 2024.