PTI reported that the Supreme Court’s deadline was missed by the State Bank of India, as they have not disclosed any details regarding the electoral bonds encashed by political parties as of March 6.
apex court has not yet scheduled a hearing for the bank’s request to extend the deadline for disclosing details, which was made on March 4 and sought an extension until June 30. The State Bank of India (SBI) stated in its plea that the process of retrieving information from different sources and aligning data between separate systems would require a significant amount of time.
The matter, as reported by PTI, was not commented on or provided with information by an Election Commission spokesperson. The Supreme Court had previously instructed the State Bank of India to cease the issuance of Electoral Bonds immediately after its January verdict and had set a deadline of March 6 for the submission of the requested details. These details, to be furnished by the SBI, will reveal information about each electoral bond that has been encashed by political parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination of the bond. Furthermore, the apex court has directed the Election Commission of India to publish the details of Electoral Bonds on its official website by March 13. On February 15, the Supreme Court had delivered its verdict on a series of petitions challenging the validity of the Electoral Bond scheme, which permits anonymous funding to political parties.
The electoral bonds scheme was deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land. A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud issued two distinct yet unanimous judgments on petitions contesting the scheme. The Supreme Court emphasized that sacrificing the Right to Information to combat black money is unwarranted. “There are viable alternatives that achieve the same goal while minimizing the impact on the right to information, unlike the significant impact of electoral bonds,” the SC stated according to LiveLaw. In delivering the judgment, the CJI highlighted that the scheme violates the freedom of speech and expression as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The bench also asserted that the fundamental right to privacy encompasses citizens’ political privacy and affiliations.
The program will provide an advantage to the ruling party, as stated. The Supreme Court mentioned the potential for a quid pro quo situation arising from financial donations to a political party due to the strong connection between money and politics.
