In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 18) asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all 'conceivable' details available with it regarding electoral bonds, including the alphanumeric number corresponding to each bond. It pronounced -
"...There is no manner of doubt that the SBI is required to furnish all details available with it. This, we clarify, will include the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds purchased. In order to avoid any controversy in the future, the chairperson of the bank should file an affidavit by 5 PM on Thursday that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld."
The Court stated that its February 15 judgment mandated the SBI to disclose "all details" including the date of purchase/redemption, name of purchaser/recipient, and the denomination. The use of the word "including" means that the details specified in the judgment are ilustrative and not exhaustive.
The Court further directed that the Election Commission of India should upload on its website the details received from the SBI forthwith upon their receipt.
This marks a significant step in the court-mandated disclosure process relating to electoral bond details, which stems from a constitution bench ruling striking down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional. Previously, the apex court dismissed an application by the bank for an extension of time to furnish electoral bonds details.
Following the court's rebuke, the State Bank furnished the details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in compliance with its directives. The details were provided in two separate information packets - the first containing details of the purchasers of the electoral bonds, and the second containing names of the political parties who have encashed these bonds with all the requisite details.
Last week, a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra reconvened to hear an application filed by the Election Commission of India. The commission sought the return of sealed envelopes containing electoral bond details furnished previously to the apex court, stating that it did not retain copies to maintain confidentiality. In response to this, the bench instructed the registrar general to ensure the scanning and digitisation of the data by 5 PM on Saturday, after which the original copy was directed be returned to the Election Commission. The digitised files was also made available to them so that the data could be uploaded on the commission's website.
Crucially, during last week's hearing, the five-judge bench stressed the need for the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose the alphanumeric number corresponding to each electoral bond, along with the details it has already disclosed regarding the purchase and redemption of the bonds. Accordingly, it issued notice to the SBI and directed the matter to be posted for hearing on Monday, March 18.
Disclosure of 'all details' mean disclosure of bond numbers too: Supreme Court
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised the scope of disclosure required saying, “In the judgment, we had expressed asked the State Bank of India to disclose 'all details.' That includes the bond numbers as well. The bank cannot be selective in disclosing all details. Do not wait for the orders of this court.”
“If the numbers are to be given, we will give them. That's no problem,” Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the State Bank of India, admitted. He defended the bank by saying that the current status of the disclosure on the basis of its understanding of the court's interim directive in April 2019.
To this, the chief justice reiterated, “When we say 'all details,' it includes all conceivable data. This interim order has merged with our final judgment. We will clarify that and say that the State Bank of India will not only file the bond numbers but also ask it so submit an affidavit saying that it has not suppressed any details. The onus should not be on the court."
During the courtroom exchange, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing FICCI and ASSOCHAM, sought to address the court in an attempt to convince them to defer the disclosure of the bond numbers. However, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded, “We have no such application on board.”
When Rohatgi sought to press his application on behalf of industrialists, questioning how the information can be asked to be disclosed when there was a guarantee of anonymity, Chief Justice Chandrachud replied, "Mr Rohatgi, there is only one answer. With effect from April 12, 2019, we directed the collection of details. Everyone was put on notice at the time. This is why we did not ask the disclosure of the bonds sold prior to this interim order. This was a conscious choice by this constitution bench."
Courts shoulder broad enough to deal with social media commentary: Supreme Court
The court was also addressed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who highlighted the challenges posed by social media commentary on the court's judgment. He expressed concerns about the misuse of statistics and the potential for misinformation –
“How this court's judgment is playing out is something which it must be informed of…Now the witch-hunting has started at some other level, not at the government-level. Those before the court have started giving press interviews deliberately embarrassing the court. A barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment has started. Statistics can be twisted in any manner. Based upon twisted statistics, all kinds of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction…”
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud reassured that the court was prepared to handle social media commentary, stating, “As an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary. Our intent was disclosure…We are governed by a rule of law.”
Directing disclosure of bond details between court's interim order and final judgment was a conscious decision: Supreme Court
In a related development, the 'Citizens Rights Trust' has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking the disclosure of the details of electoral bonds sold between March 1, 2018 and April 11, 2019, including the alphanumeric number, date of purchase, denomination, and names of donors and political parties. It has claimed that a total of 9,159 bonds worth Rs 4,000 crores was sold in this period.
Presently, the Supreme Court has only directed the State Bank of India to disclose information relating to bonds sold since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019 until the date on which it declared the scheme unconstitutional on February 15.
During today's hearing, the Chief Justice Chandrachud-led bench responded to this application, emphasising that making the directive for disclosure applicable from April 12, 2019 was a conscious choice by the constitution bench. The chief justice clarified the court's stance once again, when some lawyers, including Advocate Prashant Bhushan, urged the court to direct the disclosure of electoral bond details from the inception of the government's scheme.
"In our judgment, we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be date of interim order (April 12, 2019). We took that date because it was our considered view that once that interim order was pronounced, everybody was put on notice. If we have to go back to earlier date, it it will become a substantive modification of the judgment and will require a review of this judgment. This cannot be done in a miscellaneous application."
To this, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria replied, "Logically, once the right to know of voter, it should be from the beginning. But if Your Lordships have taken a conscious decision, I am not pressing it."
When Bhushan continued his impassioned plea, Solicitor General Mehta interjected, "Enough of assistance by these 'public spirited citizens'. He is gathering the details for a future public interest litigation."
Ultimately, the bench dismissed this application as non-maintainable, recording that it sought a substantive modification of the constitution bench ruling.
Background
In a landmark judgment, the Chief Justice Chandrachud-led bench on February 15 struck down the electoral bonds scheme holding that anonymous electoral bonds contravene the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Not only this, the State Bank of India, the issuing bank of electoral bonds, was directed by this constitution bench to cease issuing these bonds immediately. Furthermore, the bank was instructed to submit details of all such bond purchases made since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India within three weeks, setting the deadline for March 6, 2024.
Days before the deadline was set to expire, the State Bank of India moved an application seeking an extension of time. Following this, various parties, including Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), filed contempt petitions against it for its non-disclosure of vital details related to electoral bonds.
SBI's application was dismissed by the five-judge bench, which concluded that the requisite information was readily available with the bank, and rejected attempts by the issuing bank to get the deadline extended on grounds of the complexity of compiling the data. Accordingly, the court mandated the disclosure of these details by the close of business hours on March 12, 2024.
Following this directive, the SBI, on March 12, furnished the electoral bonds details to the Election Commission of India in compliance with the court's order. The ECI promptly announced this development via its spokesperson on the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter).
Additionally, on March 13, 2024, the Chairman of the State Bank of India, Dinesh Kumar Khara, filed a compliance affidavit with the Supreme Court, affirming the submission of electoral bonds details to the ECI. The affidavit outlined that the bank provided the information in two separate packets: one containing details of bond purchasers and the other containing information on political parties redeeming these bonds. Furthermore, the SBI clarified that between April 1, 2019, and February 15, 2024, a total of 22,217 bonds were purchased, while 22,030 bonds were redeemed during this period.
In a subsequent move, on March 14, the Election Commission of India uploaded the electoral bonds data supplied by the State Bank of India on its official website, adhering to the court's directives for transparency. On Saturday, the Supreme Court, in response to its application, returned the sealed envelopes containing the data received from political parties on electoral bonds, along with a digitised version. Following this, the commission uploaded on its website the digitised data received from the court's registry, announcing this development in a press release.
Case Details
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No. 11805 of 2024
In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 18) asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all 'conceivable' details available with it regarding electoral bonds, including the alphanumeric number corresponding to each bond. It pronounced -
"...There is no manner of doubt that the SBI is required to furnish all details available with it. This, we clarify, will include the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds purchased. In order to avoid any controversy in the future, the chairperson of the bank should file an affidavit by 5 PM on Thursday that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld."
The Court stated that its February 15 judgment mandated the SBI to disclose "all details" including the date of purchase/redemption, name of purchaser/recipient, and the denomination. The use of the word "including" means that the details specified in the judgment are ilustrative and not exhaustive.
The Court further directed that the Election Commission of India should upload on its website the details received from the SBI forthwith upon their receipt.
This marks a significant step in the court-mandated disclosure process relating to electoral bond details, which stems from a constitution bench ruling striking down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional. Previously, the apex court dismissed an application by the bank for an extension of time to furnish electoral bonds details.
Following the court's rebuke, the State Bank furnished the details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in compliance with its directives. The details were provided in two separate information packets - the first containing details of the purchasers of the electoral bonds, and the second containing names of the political parties who have encashed these bonds with all the requisite details.
Last week, a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra reconvened to hear an application filed by the Election Commission of India. The commission sought the return of sealed envelopes containing electoral bond details furnished previously to the apex court, stating that it did not retain copies to maintain confidentiality. In response to this, the bench instructed the registrar general to ensure the scanning and digitisation of the data by 5 PM on Saturday, after which the original copy was directed be returned to the Election Commission. The digitised files was also made available to them so that the data could be uploaded on the commission's website.
Crucially, during last week's hearing, the five-judge bench stressed the need for the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose the alphanumeric number corresponding to each electoral bond, along with the details it has already disclosed regarding the purchase and redemption of the bonds. Accordingly, it issued notice to the SBI and directed the matter to be posted for hearing on Monday, March 18.
Disclosure of 'all details' mean disclosure of bond numbers too: Supreme Court
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised the scope of disclosure required saying, “In the judgment, we had expressed asked the State Bank of India to disclose 'all details.' That includes the bond numbers as well. The bank cannot be selective in disclosing all details. Do not wait for the orders of this court.”
“If the numbers are to be given, we will give them. That's no problem,” Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the State Bank of India, admitted. He defended the bank by saying that the current status of the disclosure on the basis of its understanding of the court's interim directive in April 2019.
To this, the chief justice reiterated, “When we say 'all details,' it includes all conceivable data. This interim order has merged with our final judgment. We will clarify that and say that the State Bank of India will not only file the bond numbers but also ask it so submit an affidavit saying that it has not suppressed any details. The onus should not be on the court."
During the courtroom exchange, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing FICCI and ASSOCHAM, sought to address the court in an attempt to convince them to defer the disclosure of the bond numbers. However, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded, “We have no such application on board.”
When Rohatgi sought to press his application on behalf of industrialists, questioning how the information can be asked to be disclosed when there was a guarantee of anonymity, Chief Justice Chandrachud replied, "Mr Rohatgi, there is only one answer. With effect from April 12, 2019, we directed the collection of details. Everyone was put on notice at the time. This is why we did not ask the disclosure of the bonds sold prior to this interim order. This was a conscious choice by this constitution bench."
Courts shoulder broad enough to deal with social media commentary: Supreme Court
The court was also addressed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who highlighted the challenges posed by social media commentary on the court's judgment. He expressed concerns about the misuse of statistics and the potential for misinformation –
“How this court's judgment is playing out is something which it must be informed of…Now the witch-hunting has started at some other level, not at the government-level. Those before the court have started giving press interviews deliberately embarrassing the court. A barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment has started. Statistics can be twisted in any manner. Based upon twisted statistics, all kinds of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction…”
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud reassured that the court was prepared to handle social media commentary, stating, “As an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary. Our intent was disclosure…We are governed by a rule of law.”
Directing disclosure of bond details between court's interim order and final judgment was a conscious decision: Supreme Court
In a related development, the 'Citizens Rights Trust' has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking the disclosure of the details of electoral bonds sold between March 1, 2018 and April 11, 2019, including the alphanumeric number, date of purchase, denomination, and names of donors and political parties. It has claimed that a total of 9,159 bonds worth Rs 4,000 crores was sold in this period.
Presently, the Supreme Court has only directed the State Bank of India to disclose information relating to bonds sold since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019 until the date on which it declared the scheme unconstitutional on February 15.
During today's hearing, the Chief Justice Chandrachud-led bench responded to this application, emphasising that making the directive for disclosure applicable from April 12, 2019 was a conscious choice by the constitution bench. The chief justice clarified the court's stance once again, when some lawyers, including Advocate Prashant Bhushan, urged the court to direct the disclosure of electoral bond details from the inception of the government's scheme.
"In our judgment, we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be date of interim order (April 12, 2019). We took that date because it was our considered view that once that interim order was pronounced, everybody was put on notice. If we have to go back to earlier date, it it will become a substantive modification of the judgment and will require a review of this judgment. This cannot be done in a miscellaneous application."
To this, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria replied, "Logically, once the right to know of voter, it should be from the beginning. But if Your Lordships have taken a conscious decision, I am not pressing it."
When Bhushan continued his impassioned plea, Solicitor General Mehta interjected, "Enough of assistance by these 'public spirited citizens'. He is gathering the details for a future public interest litigation."
Ultimately, the bench dismissed this application as non-maintainable, recording that it sought a substantive modification of the constitution bench ruling.
Background
In a landmark judgment, the Chief Justice Chandrachud-led bench on February 15 struck down the electoral bonds scheme holding that anonymous electoral bonds contravene the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Not only this, the State Bank of India, the issuing bank of electoral bonds, was directed by this constitution bench to cease issuing these bonds immediately. Furthermore, the bank was instructed to submit details of all such bond purchases made since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India within three weeks, setting the deadline for March 6, 2024.
Days before the deadline was set to expire, the State Bank of India moved an application seeking an extension of time. Following this, various parties, including Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), filed contempt petitions against it for its non-disclosure of vital details related to electoral bonds.
SBI's application was dismissed by the five-judge bench, which concluded that the requisite information was readily available with the bank, and rejected attempts by the issuing bank to get the deadline extended on grounds of the complexity of compiling the data. Accordingly, the court mandated the disclosure of these details by the close of business hours on March 12, 2024.
Following this directive, the SBI, on March 12, furnished the electoral bonds details to the Election Commission of India in compliance with the court's order. The ECI promptly announced this development via its spokesperson on the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter).
Additionally, on March 13, 2024, the Chairman of the State Bank of India, Dinesh Kumar Khara, filed a compliance affidavit with the Supreme Court, affirming the submission of electoral bonds details to the ECI. The affidavit outlined that the bank provided the information in two separate packets: one containing details of bond purchasers and the other containing information on political parties redeeming these bonds. Furthermore, the SBI clarified that between April 1, 2019, and February 15, 2024, a total of 22,217 bonds were purchased, while 22,030 bonds were redeemed during this period.
In a subsequent move, on March 14, the Election Commission of India uploaded the electoral bonds data supplied by the State Bank of India on its official website, adhering to the court's directives for transparency. On Saturday, the Supreme Court, in response to its application, returned the sealed envelopes containing the data received from political parties on electoral bonds, along with a digitised version. Following this, the commission uploaded on its website the digitised data received from the court's registry, announcing this development in a press release.
Case Details
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No. 11805 of 2024
