(Image source from: Twitter.com/CGMSBICha)
The State Bank of India faced strong criticism from the Supreme Court on Monday for deliberately failing to follow last month's order to disclose data on electoral bond donors and recipients by March 6. In a significant turn of events, the court cautioned the SBI that it could face contempt proceedings if it did not release the data by the end of the next business day. Additionally, the court instructed the Chairman and Managing Director of the SBI, which holds a 23% market share and is India's largest bank, to submit an affidavit upon compliance. The court clarified that it was not currently inclined to exercise contempt jurisdiction, but warned the SBI that it might pursue action for willful disobedience if the bank did not adhere to the specified timelines. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading the bench, also ordered the Election Commission of India to gather and publish all electoral bond data on its website by 5 pm on Friday. The Supreme Court heard the SBI's request to extend the deadline for releasing information on electoral bonds, including details on donors and recipients.
"We require additional time to comply. We were instructed that this information should be kept confidential." The bank had requested an extension until June 30, which would be after the general election. In response, the court highlighted that donor details were accessible at the SBI's Mumbai branch, and the bank simply needed to "uncover, organize information, and provide it." The Chief Justice then questioned the bank about their progress since the initial order was issued 26 days ago. "Please inform us of the progress you have made in the past 26 days. We expect a certain level of transparency from the SBI..." he commented. Today, the court also heard pleas from the Association for Democratic Reform (ADR), one of the original challengers of the government's electoral bonds scheme launched in 2017. The scheme aimed to allow individuals and groups, including corporations, to donate to political causes while maintaining complete anonymity.
The ADR had requested contempt action against the State Bank of India for deliberately and intentionally disobeying the court's order in this matter. The election is being questioned because the application seems dishonest and shows a deliberate refusal to follow the judgment made by the Constitution bench. Additionally, it appears to be an intentional effort to weaken the power of this court.
