The Supreme Court ordered SBI to disclose details of the electoral bonds encashed by political parties to the Election Commission.

The State Bank of India or SBI is reportedly “ready” with details of electoral bonds that the Supreme Court on Monday had asked for to be disclosed to the Election Commission of India by the close of business hours on Tuesday, March 12.

Chastising the SBI, the Supreme Court ordered it to disclose the details of the electoral bonds encashed by political parties to the Election Commission and warned the country’s largest public sector lender that the court may proceed against it for “wilful disobedience” if it failed to comply with its directions and deadlines.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while dismissing the State Bank of India’s plea seeking an extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details, also directed the EC to publish the information shared by the bank on its official website by 5pm on March 15.

The lender, according to an NDTV Profit report, said it is ready with the data on electoral bonds, adding that mapping of data was important to avoid discrepancies. Customers can no longer claim anonymity as the disclosure has been ordered by the Supreme Court, the bank added.

HT, however, could not independently verify the development.

Electoral bonds: Takeaways from Supreme Court verdict

1. In a landmark verdict delivered on February 15, the same five-judge constitution bench had scrapped the Centre’s controversial electoral bonds scheme that allowed anonymous political funding, calling it “unconstitutional”, and ordered disclosure by the election commission of donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13.
2. Ordering the closure of the scheme, the apex court directed the SBI to submit by March 6 the details of the electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, till date to the poll panel.
3. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing the SBI’s application for an extension of time till June 30 to furnish the details.
4. The bench was also hearing separate pleas seeking initiation of contempt action against the SBI for alleged willful disobedience of the apex court’s February 15 directives.
5. It observed that SBI’s submissions in the application sufficiently indicated that the information which was directed to be disclosed by the court was readily available.