Electoral Bonds: Why SC interpreted and clarified its own judgment twice in a week

SBI has had two run-ins with SC in the last week over the electoral bonds judgment

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) chairman to submit an affidavit affirming that it provided all details pertaining to electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the top court's second such order to India's largest lender in a week.

The SBI chairman has now faced the top court's scrutiny twice for its interpretation of the February 15 judgment on the constitutional validity on electoral bonds.

Moneycontrol explains the implications of the court's directive and the circumstances leading to the Supreme Court seeking two affidavits from the SBI chairman within a week.

What happened on March 11?

The Supreme Court in February struck down electoral bonds as unconstitutional on the ground that the non-disclosure of information regarding the funding of political parties is violative of the right to information of citizens. The top court further directed SBI to furnish all the data related to electoral bonds to the ECI by March 6. The ECI was directed to publish this by March 13.

"SBI must disclose details of each Electoral Bond encashed by political parties, which shall include the date of encashment and the denomination of the Electoral Bond," the judgment had said.

However, on March 4, the SBI moved an application seeking an extension till June 30 to disclose details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties. SBI drew the wrath of SC for filing such a plea when it came for a hearing on March 11. The court not only dismissed the plea but also directed the CMD of SBI to file an affidavit after the bank furnished all the details regarding electoral bonds to ECI.

While the SBI had said it would require time to match the details of the donor with the political party they have donated to, the Supreme Court clarified that it need not do any such matching and it would have to submit the details that are readily available with it. The SC, thus, found no merit in SBI's application. Therefore, this became the first instance where SC had to interpret its own judgment.

Accordingly, the SBI furnished the details to the ECI on March 12, and on March 14, the EC published the details of electoral bonds provided by the SBI. SBI's CMD filed an affidavit accordingly, informing the court that the bank had handed over all the requisite documents to ECI.

ECI's application and the consequences:

The ECI accordingly published all the documents SBI had given to it by March 14. However there was another direction of the Supreme Court that the ECI had to follow, thus it filed an application for modification of its March 11 order.

In November 2023, the apex court directed ECI to file, in sealed covers, the affidavit filed by political parties on the details of the electoral bond contributions received. In its February judgment, the SC directed ECI to publish the information it had submitted in a sealed cover.

ECI filed an application seeking the return of the documents it had submitted in November 2023, as it did not have any copies of these documents. Since it has been directed to publish these documents, it needed them back to publish it.

On March 15, the SC held that it would digitise these documents and return the same to ECI on the evening of March 16. The ECI can thereafter publish all these documents on its website.

However, it is at this point that the SC noticed that SBI had not revealed the alphanumeric bond numbers. It thus issued notice to SBI asking why it had not revealed these numbers despite the judgment asking it to do so. The SC scheduled the hearing for this plea on March 18.

What happened on March 18?

On March 18, SC again pulled up SBI for not providing bond numbers along with the details it had furnished. Senior advocate Harish Salve, who appeared for SBI, said that it had interpreted the judgment to mean that certain details of the electoral bonds need not be revealed. Salve read the judgment and pointed out that the SC judgment does not specifically mention that the bond numbers be revealed.

The court responded to this saying "There is no manner of doubt that the SBI is required to furnish all details available with it. We clarify, will include the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds purchased. In order to avoid any controversy in the future, the chairperson of the bank should file an affidavit by 5 PM on Thursday that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld."

Thus, in its second interpretation and clarification, SC said SBI had to reveal all the details regarding electoral bonds. Not just submit, SC has also directed SBI's CMD to file an affidavit saying the bank has disclosed all the details regarding the electoral bonds.