Supreme Court questions SBI on Electoral Bonds in 10 words.
In the Electoral Bonds case, the Supreme Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose details of all electoral bonds, including the identity of donors and political parties, by the close of business hours on March 12.
The Court’s decision comes in response to a petition seeking transparency in electoral funding. The petitioners argued that the anonymity provided by electoral bonds leads to opacity in political funding, undermining the transparency essential for a healthy democracy.
The SBI, as the sole authorized bank to issue and encash these bonds, has been asked to provide comprehensive information. This includes details of the donors, the parties receiving the bonds, and the amounts involved.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, emphasized the importance of transparency in electoral funding. They noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had raised concerns about the lack of transparency and the potential for misuse of electoral bonds.
The Supreme Court also directed the ECI to provide its opinion on the matter. The Court aims to balance the need for transparency with the legitimate concerns about donor privacy and political party security.
This development is crucial as it could have far-reaching implications for political funding in India. It remains to be seen how the SBI and ECI respond to the Court’s directives and what measures they propose to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing of the Electoral Bonds case on Monday, expressed dissatisfaction with the State Bank of India (SBI) for failing to comply with its earlier order.
The SBI had not disclosed the details of electoral bond donors to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by the specified deadline of March 6. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the SBI’s request for an extension until June 30, instead giving them until the close of business hours on March 12 to furnish the required information. The apex court further directed the ECI to publish this information on its official website by 5 pm on March 15.
The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, began the crucial hearing by questioning the SBI on the steps taken in the last 26 days since the initial order. The Court emphasized that it had instructed the SBI to provide a “plain disclosure” as per its previous judgment.
“The SBI has to just open the sealed cover, collate details and give information to the Election Commission,” the bench, which also includes justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, stated.
The SBI had requested an extension until June 30 to reveal the details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties prior to the scheme being terminated.
A separate petition seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the SBI was also heard during the proceedings.
This development marks a significant turn in the ongoing saga of electoral bonds, a financial instrument introduced by the government in 2018 as a means of anonymous political funding. However, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency and accountability associated with these bonds.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the SBI’s compliance with its order indicates a clear stance on the importance of transparency in political funding. The Court’s directive to the SBI to disclose donor details to the ECI and publish them on its website underscores the need for accountability in the electoral process.
The issue of electoral bonds has been a subject of controversy since their inception. These bonds allow individuals and companies to donate money to political parties without revealing their identities publicly. Critics argue that this anonymity can lead to potential misuse and corruption in the political system.
The petitioners in this case have been advocating for greater transparency, arguing that the public has a right to know who is funding political parties. They contend that the lack of disclosure regarding electoral bond donors undermines the democratic principles of transparency and accountability.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the SBI’s request for an extension highlights the urgency of the matter. The Court’s insistence on the disclosure of donor details within a specified timeframe indicates a firm commitment to upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in political funding.
The SBI, as the designated bank for the issuance and encashment of electoral bonds, plays a crucial role in this process. The Court’s directive for the SBI to provide the necessary information to the ECI indicates a clear pathway towards greater transparency in political funding.
It is noteworthy that the SBI had initially sought an extension until June 30 to comply with the Court’s order. However, the Supreme Court’s rejection of this request demonstrates a sense of urgency in addressing the issue of electoral bond transparency.
The bench’s questioning of the SBI’s actions in the last 26 days suggests a thorough examination of the bank’s compliance with the Court’s directives. The Court’s emphasis on the need for a “plain disclosure” indicates a desire for straightforward and unambiguous reporting of donor details.
The Supreme Court’s directive for the ECI to publish the information on its official website further ensures that the public has access to this crucial data. Transparency in political funding is essential for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that democratic principles are upheld.
The separate petition seeking contempt proceedings against the SBI underscores the seriousness of the issue at hand. It reflects the concerns of the petitioners and the public regarding the lack of transparency in electoral bond transactions.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s actions in the Electoral Bonds case demonstrate a strong commitment to transparency and accountability in political funding. The Court’s scrutiny of the SBI’s compliance and its directives for disclosure of donor details indicate a significant step towards ensuring that the electoral process remains free from undue influence and corruption.
As the case progresses, it will be crucial to observe how the SBI responds to the Court’s directives and how the ECI handles the information provided. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for political funding in India, setting a precedent for greater transparency and accountability in the future.