Didn’t get it?: SBI’s supposed confusion over understanding SC’s electoral bonds verdict shows why judgment was right

SBI will finally submit details of electoral bonds (EBs) to EC. In an embarrassing day at SC yesterday, SBI’s application asking for an extension of the deadline to June 30 was dismissed. Separately, EC has been asked to compile info on EBs and publish it on their website by 5pm Friday.

Big bank, big mistake | In terms of optics, SBI’s approach to SC’s landmark Feb verdict on EBs has been poor. SC’s order was straightforward. SBI was asked to compile details it was always required to keep and give these to EC by March 6. In its application to SC, SBI asked for time to carry out value addition on the data. SC’s order didn’t ask for any value addition. It just asked the bank to hand over info it was expected to maintain.

That’s EBs’ problem | SBI’s response to SC’s judgment validates the main criticism of EBs. They are bearer bonds similar to currency. That’s why only RBI was authorised to issue bearer bonds.
Removing this monopoly power triggered an objection by RBI in 2017. One of its grounds was that a bearer bond can change hands before it reaches a political party for encashment. That’s the way currency works too. So, it’s hard to understand why India’s largest commercial bank wanted more time to match donor details with redemption by political parties. There’s no foolproof way of doing it.

Institutions & questions | Two institutions, SBI and EC, have had a tough time in following SC’s orders when it comes to EBs. In Nov 2023, SC in an interim order asked EC to collect info on EBs received by political parties till Sep 30 and give it to the court in a sealed envelope. In the course of hearing, it emerged that EC had misunderstood earlier orders on collating info. It led to a rap on the knuckles by SC.

Unanimity of verdict | SC’s decision to strike down EBs was a milestone. A five-judge bench came up with two opinions. But they agreed on every important point, even if there were subtle differences in reasoning. The highlight of this unanimous verdict was that info on political funding is essential to help voters decide on their choice. Also, political parties need to be subject to the same levels of disclosure as individual candidates in an election. That’s been reaffirmed.

END OF ARTICLE