New Delhi: In a third tongue-lashing at the State Bank of India, the Supreme Court on Monday told it to stop being “selective” and make a “complete disclosure” of all details related to the electoral bond scheme by March 21. The apex court said that the details to be disclosed include the unique bond numbers that would reveal the link between the buyers and the receiving political parties.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that there is “no way of doubt that the SBI is required to make a complete disclosure of all the details” that are in its possession.
The bench, which also comprises Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, said the Election Commission will immediately upload on its website the details received from the SBI.
In a major ruling, a five-judge constitution bench struck down the scheme, calling it “unconstitutional”, and ordered disclosure by the Election Commission of donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13.
On March 11, the SBI, which had unsuccessfully sought an extension of time till June 30 to disclose details of electoral bonds, faced searching questions from the apex court, which wanted to know about the steps taken to implement its directions.
Last Friday, the SC admonished SBI for providing incomplete information and issued a notice to the bank to explain the reasons for the non-disclosure of unique alphanumeric numbers.
On Monday, the bench noted the submission of senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the SBI, that there is no reservation for the bank to disclose all the details of voting bonds that are in its possession.
“In order to fully comply with the order and avoid any controversy in the future, the chairman and managing director of SBI will file an affidavit on or before 5 pm on Thursday (March 21) indicating that SBI has disclosed all the details of the election bonds. which were in its possession and custody and that no details were concealed,” the bench said.
During the hearing, the bench asked the SBI to disclose all conceivable information about electoral bonds, including bond numbers.
“We have asked all the details to be made public by the SBI, which also includes voter link numbers. Let SBI not be selective in disclosure,” the bench mentioned verbally.
It said that the apex court, in its verdict in the electoral bonds case, had asked the bank to disclose all the details of the bonds and it should not wait for further orders on this aspect.
The bench refused hearing on unlisted pleas of industry bodies, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in the case. The industry bodies, through senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, wanted an urgent hearing on their interim plea against the disclosure of bond details.
Salve told the bench that it should not appear that the bank is “playing games with” the court as they have no difficulty in disclosing the details of voting covenants.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner NGO in the case, claimed that important parties did not give details to the donor and only a few parties gave it.
“There is enough assistance from public-spirited citizens,” said attorney general Tushar Mehta, asserting that these sponsored NGOs are “dropping figures”.
The apex court also refused to take note of a letter by senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), seeking a suo motu review of the judgment on disclosure of electoral bond details.
“Apart from being senior counsel, you are president of SCBA. You know the procedure,” CJI Chandrachud said, adding, “You have written a letter asking me to invoke my suo motu jurisdiction. What is the place to mention? These are all advertisement-oriented stunts. We won’t allow it”.
“Don’t make me say anything more. It will be unpleasant,” the CJI told Aggarwala, who wrote a letter in his personal capacity.
Advocate General Mehta said on behalf of the Central government, “I completely disassociate myself with what Aggarwala has written. It is completely unjustified and ill-advised”.
He also said that after the apex court’s verdict on electoral bonds, “witch hunt started at some other level, not at the government level”. Those before the court have started giving press interviews, “deliberately embarrassing” the court and this is creating an uneven playing field, Mehta said.
The attorney general also referred to social media and said that these were intended to cause embarrassment. He emphasized that the Center’s case was that they wanted to curb black money.
To this, the CJI said, “Sir lawyer, we are only concerned with carrying out the direction we have given. As judges, we decide according to the Constitution. We are governed by the rule of law. We are also the subject of comments. in the social media and the press.”
“Certainly, as an institution, our shoulders are quite broad. Our court has an institutional role to play in politics, which is governed by the Constitution and the rule of law. That is the only job,” said Judge Chandrachud.
The apex court also refused to entertain an application seeking disclosure of the details of electoral bonds sold from March 1, 2018 to April 11, 2019.