SBI Office, Supreme Court.
Credit: PTI, Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday told the SBI that there is no manner of doubt that in its judgement of February 15, 2024 declaring Electoral Bonds as unconstitutional, the issuing bank has to disclose all details, including alphanumeric numbers, to the Election Commission for publishing on its website.
The top court, however, rejected a plea to disclose details of Electoral Bonds prior to the interim order of April 12, 2019.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said that the SBI was required to submit all details in terms of the purchase and of the receipt. The expression, "including" clearly demonstrated that the inclusive part was illustrative and not exhaustive, the court clarified.
"SBI's attitude seems to be 'You tell us what to disclose, we will disclose'. That does not seem to be fair. When we say 'all details', it includes all conceivable data. We want all information related to the electoral bonds to be disclosed which is in your possession," the bench told senior advocate Harish Salve appearing for the bank.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked the SBI chairman and managing director to file an affidavit by Thursday that it has disclosed all details related to Electoral Bonds.
The SBI agreed to provide all details. "We will give the bond numbers. The judgement was for transparency and the right to know for the citizens. If there are PILs saying investigate this and that, I don't think that is the intent of this court's judgment," Salve said.
"We will every bit of information. SBI is not holding back any information," he said.
The court, however, declined to consider a plea related to disclosure of all bonds issued since launch of the scheme in 2018, before its interim order on April 12, 2019.
"In our judgment, we have taken a conscious decision that the cut-off date should be date of interim order. We took that date because it was our considered view that once that interim order was pronounced, everybody was put on notice," the bench said.
The court also refused to consider a plea by advocate Prashant Bhushan for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms that major political parties in their details furnished to the Election Commission in terms of interim orders, did not disclose the name of donors though some smaller parties had done so.
The bench, however, said, "If we go back to earlier date (before interim order in 2019), it will become review of the judgment."
"We don't want to expand remit of the judgment," the bench said.
During the hearing, the court declined to consider submission by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of the industry bodies like FICCI and ASSOCHAM.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union government sought to highlight witch hunting of political parties and twisting of the information started in social media as even those before the court have started giving press interviews to embarrass the court.
The bench, however, said, "Our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media. We are governed by the Rule of Law...our intent was for disclosure only."