NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court would hear on March 11 the plea filed by the SBI seeking extension of time till June 30 to give details of all electoral bonds encashed from April 2019 onwards. The apex court would also hear the contempt plea filed by ADR (Association of Democratic Reforms) on the same day against the SBI.
A five-judge bench of the top court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, would hear the plea.
The SBI had on March 4 moved the top court seeking extension of time till June 30 to furnish information regarding electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
In its February 15 judgement, the Supreme Court had asked the SBI to furnish the information to the ECI by March 6. In the verdict, the Supreme Court said that the electoral bonds scheme has to be struck down as unconstitutional and directed banks to stop issuing bonds.
"The Union has been unable to establish the measure adopted in clause 7(4)(1) of the electoral scheme is the least restrictive measure," a five-judge bench of the top court had said in the order.
In a similar development in the case, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which is the lead petitioner in the electoral bond case, had yesterday knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking direction for initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the SBI for failing to disclose the data as directed by the SC by March 6.
The ADR in its plea filed before the top court said that the SBI has illegally, wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the apex court's February 15 judgment in the electoral bond case.
The ADR, in its plea, alleged that the SBI application is malafide and demonstrates wilful and deliberate disobedience and defiance of the judgment. "Defiant approach by SBI towards citizen's right to know, is reprehensible and betrays its motive to stifle citizen’s voice and right to audit actions of the political class," the ADR in its plea said before the apex court.
The ADR's contempt plea alleged that the data is easily available with the SBI, but it had failed to act as directed by the court. It has thereby sought the court's direction for disclosure of bond data by the SBI forthwith.
The ADR alleged that it's 'inconceivable' that around 2.6 lakh SBI employees could not locate and share data within three weeks to the apex court though bonds are readily traceable through unique serial numbers.
An electoral bond is an instrument in the nature of a promissory note or bearer bond which can be purchased by any individual, company, firm or association of persons provided the person or body is a citizen of India or incorporated or established in India.
Electoral bonds were introduced through the Finance Act 2017, which in turn amended three other statutes - the RBI Act, the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act - for enabling introduction of such bonds.
Various petitions had been filed before the top court challenging at least five amendments made to different statutes through Finance Act 2016 and 2017, on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties.
The petitions sought that the money bill route was adopted in order to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where the ruling BJP government does not have a majority.
The petitioners -- ADR and Common Cause and Jaya Thakur -- had moved the Supreme Court and challenged the electoral bond scheme.
They claimed that the consequence of the amendments was that annual contribution reports of political parties to be furnished to the Election Commission of India (ECI) need not mention names and addresses of those persons/ individuals by contributing by way of electoral bonds, thereby killing transparency in political funding.
The Finance Act, 2017 introduced a system of electoral bonds to be issued by any scheduled bank for the purpose of electoral funding.
