What SC Asked 'No 1 Bank in India' SBI in Electoral Bond Case - 10 Points

The Supreme Court has slammed the State Bank of India over non-compliance of its order on disclosing the details of Electoral Bonds by March 6. Though the court did not take up the contempt plea filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms(ADR), it directed the SBI to file an affidavit by its chairman and MD on compliance and put the bank on notice if it fails to comply with the judgement. Here is a breakout of what the apex court told SBI while hearing its plea.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily at the State Bank of India and turned down the bank's request for more time to disclose details of the electoral bond scheme. The apex court has instructed the bank to share the details with the Election Commission of India (ECI) by tomorrow. The saving grace was that the top court said it would not take up the contempt petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), but put the bank on notice for the same, while asking the bank's chairman and MD to file an affidavit on compliance. It also directed the poll body to publish the details on its website by 5 pm on Friday, while fixing the deadline to share information for the bank as Tuesday's (March 12) close of business.

Here is all that the SC said while grilling SBI:

1. The SC submitted that donor details were kept in a sealed cover in a designated branch, and all sealed covers were deposited at the main branch in Mumbai. The bench further queried the SBI’s counsel, what you are saying is that donor details were sent to Mumbai main branch and the political parties' details were also sent to the same branch and thus two sets of information were there?
2. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud told the SBI’s counsel that as per its judgement, the court had not told the bank to do the matching exercise and instead directed a plain disclosure?
3. The SBI contended that it divided the information while purchases were happening. A bemused SC wanted to know whether they have sent all details to the Mumbai branch. "Weren’t all details sent to the Mumbai branch?" the SC asked.
4. The CJI told the bank, even your FAQs indicated that for every purchase that you had to have a separate Know Your Customer(KYC) and every time a purchase was made, the KYC was mandated. The Court wanted a 'yes' or 'no', on this aspect.
5. The bench jogged the SBI's memory as the bank had said it already had all purchaser details kept in a sealed cover. "You just need to open the sealed cover and give the details?" The bench asked.
6. The CJI said the court delivered the verdict on February 15, and today we are on March 11. In the past 26 days, what steps have you taken? Nothing is stated in the application filed by the SBI, the bench wanted to know.
7. The CJI told the SBI’s counsel, it should have mentioned in the application that this is the work which the bank has done, and it requires more time. “We expect some candour from the State Bank of India,” Chandrachud said.
8. SBI’s counsel said the bank does not want to rush into the process and create havoc by making a mistake. The bench shot back: “There is no question of any mistake. You have the KYC. You are the number 1 bank in the country. We expect you to handle it...”
9. The CJI said that an assistant general manager of the bank has filed an affidavit seeking modification of the judgement of a Constitution Bench of this court! The modification sought an extension of time until June 30 for the bank to comply with the directions issued by the constitution bench.
10. SC declined to offer three more weeks to the SBI to provide details on electoral bonds. The bench asked: Three weeks for what? Political parties have already given the details of the encashment made by them and the purchasers details are already available.

Read More