The court issued a notice to the bank and posted the matter for hearing on March 18, asking the bank to explain why it happened.
Supreme Court of India. (iStock)
The Supreme Court said on Friday, 15 March, that the State Bank of India (SBI) failed to disclose the unique alpha-numeric numbers of the electoral bonds received by political parties and sought the bank’s response.
The matter arose when senior advocate Kapil Sibal and lawyer Prashant Bhushan told the Constitutional Bench hearing an Election Commission application that the SBI had not disclosed the electoral bonds’ alphanumeric numbers.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heading the Bench, said: “Who is appearing for the State Bank of India? They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India.”
The Court said in its order: “Judgment of the Constitution Bench required the SBI to furnish to the ECI all details of the electoral bonds and redeemed, including the date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption. It is submitted that SBI has not disclosed the unique alphanumeric number of the electoral bonds. SG submits that notice may be issued to the SBI.”
The court issued a notice to the bank and posted the matter for hearing on March 18, asking the bank to explain why it happened.
The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, which was hearing an application filed by the Election Commission (EC) seeking a modification of the operative portion of its March 11 order in the electoral bonds case, directed its registrar (judicial) to ensure that the data filed earlier by the poll panel before it in a sealed cover be scanned and digitised.
The Bench directed the Registrar Judicial to ensure that the data filed by the ECI is scanned and digitised by 5 pm on Saturday. Once this is complete, the originals shall be returned to the ECI. A copy of the scanned and digitised files shall also be available to the ECI. ECI shall then upload the data on its website.
In its application, the EC said the March 11 order noted that copies of the documents submitted to the court in a sealed cover during the hearing should be maintained at the EC’s office.
It said it did not keep any copy of the documents and added that those may be returned so that it can comply with the court’s directions.
(With PTI inputs)
