The State Bank of India, which unsuccessfully sought extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds, on Monday faced searching questions from the Supreme Court which wanted to know about the steps taken to comply with the directions it had issued while scrapping the controversial scheme of anonymous political funding on February 15.
In a landmark verdict, a five-judge constitution bench had done away with 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.
Ordering the closure of the scheme, the top court had directed the SBI, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, to submit by March 6 the details of the electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to the Election Commission.
On Monday, the apex court dismissed SBI's plea seeking an extension of time and ordered it to disclose the details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission by close of business hours on March 12.
During the hearing on SBI's application seeking extension of time, the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud told senior advocate Harish Salve, who was representing the bank, that the plea was 'absolutely silent' about the steps taken to comply with its directions.
"Mr Salve, our judgement is dated February 15, 2024. We are now on the 11th of March. In the last 26 days, what extent of matching has been done by you? What steps have you taken in the last 26 days? The application is absolutely silent on that," the CJI said.
Salve told the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, that the bank can file a detailed affidavit on this aspect.
"It should have been disclosed in the affidavit," the bench said.
Justice Khanna observed that the SBI is the number one bank of the country and the court expects that it will be able to handle the issue.
During the hearing, the CJI observed that an assistant general manager of the bank has filed an affidavit in support of the application moved in the top court for modification of an order of a constitution bench.
"It is serious matter when you ask for modification of an order of the constitution bench," Justice Chandrachud said.
When Salve argued the SBI's 'big concern' was that it cannot make a mistake in this as it may get sued by the donors, Justice Gavai told him, "Whatever you are doing, you are doing under the directions of the highest court of the country. Where is the question of you being sued?"
The senior advocate said if the bank makes a mistake in a hurry to give the numbers, it might create havoc.
Salve told the bench that as per the apex court's February 15 direction, the SBI has stopped issuance of electoral bonds.
"Even your FAQs (frequently asked question), which were shown to us during the hearing, indicate that for every purchase, you have to have a separate KYC (know your customer)," the bench said, adding, "Therefore, it is very clear that every time somebody made a purchase, a KYC was mandated."
Salve said the bank have full details of who purchased the bonds and this detail is put in one silo of information.
He said the SBI has complete details of which political parties tendered how many electoral bonds and who has been paid how much.
While asking the SBI to disclose the details of electoral bonds to the EC on March 12, the bench directed the poll panel to publish the details shared by the bank on its official website by 5 pm on March 15.
It also put the SBI on notice that the top court may be inclined to proceed against it for 'wilful disobedience' of its February 15 verdict if the bank failed to comply with its directions and timelines.
