New Delhi: The Supreme Court has once again emphasized that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be selective and must divulge all possible electoral bond information it holds, including unique bond numbers that would unveil the connection between the purchaser and the political party receiving the bonds.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, reiterated that the apex court had previously instructed the bank, in its verdict on the electoral bonds case, to reveal all bond details without delay, without waiting for additional directives on the matter.

ADVERTISEMENT

It directed the SBI chairman to file an affidavit before it by 5 pm on March 21 indicating that the bank has disclosed all the details.

During the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, observed that the SBI can't be selective and has to disclose all "conceivable" electoral bond details in its possession, including unique bond numbers that would disclose the link between the buyer and the recipient political party.

The bench said the apex court had, in its verdict in the electoral bonds case, asked the bank to disclose all the details of the bonds and it should not wait for further orders on this aspect.

"We had asked all details to be disclosed by the SBI which includes electoral bond numbers as well. Let SBI not be selective in disclosure," the bench orally said during the hearing.

Last week, the top court issued a notice to the country's largest bank to explain the reasons for the non-disclosure of unique alphanumeric numbers in compliance with its directions, saying the SBI was "duty bound" to reveal them.

On April 12, 2019, the apex court issued an interim order directing that the information about the donations received and donations which will be received must be submitted by political parties to the EC in a sealed cover.

In its landmark verdict on February 15, the top court had scrapped the Centre's electoral bonds scheme that allowed anonymous political funding, calling it "unconstitutional" and ordered disclosure by the EC of donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13. 
(With PTI inputs,)

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.