Summary
SBI’s request to defer electoral-bond disclosure until 30 June 2024 was rejected because the purchase and redemption information already existed in its records. Matching donors with recipient parties was not a basis to delay disclosure of those available records. The Court required SBI’s disclosure by close of business on 12 March and Election Commission publication by 5 p.m. on 15 March 2024, with an affidavit confirming compliance. Contempt petitions were disposed of at that stage with notice of consequences for further disobedience.
Issues
- Whether separate storage and the proposed matching exercise justified extending the disclosure deadline.
- What revised compliance and publication directions should issue.
- Whether contempt jurisdiction should be exercised at that stage.
Provisions considered
- Clause 7(4), Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018Even the scheme’s confidentiality provision required disclosure when called for by a competent court. SBI’s record-keeping method did not justify withholding readily available information ordered to be furnished. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The underlying Constitution Bench judgment required disclosure of purchases and political-party redemptions from 12 April 2019 to 15 February 2024. The order concerned implementation of those directions, rather than re-adjudication of the scheme’s constitutional validity. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4)
- SBI acknowledged holding purchaser and redemption information in separate records. The stated complexity of matching donors and recipients did not justify delay in disclosing the information already available under each category. Application forms, KYC records and redemption records demonstrated accessibility. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The extension application was dismissed. SBI had to disclose the required details by close of business on 12 March 2024, and ECI had to compile and publish them by 5 p.m. on 15 March 2024. These were the historical deadlines fixed by this order. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17)
- ECI was also directed to publish the information previously furnished to the Court under interim orders. SBI’s Chairman and Managing Director had to file an affidavit upon compliance. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The Court declined contempt action at that stage given the extension application, but put SBI on notice that further non-compliance with the judgment and revised timeline could attract proceedings for wilful disobedience. The contempt petitions were disposed of on that basis, without a finding of contempt. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Result
SBI extension application dismissed. Disclosure directed by close of business on 12 March 2024 and ECI publication by 5 p.m. on 15 March 2024, with compliance affidavit. Contempt petitions disposed of at that stage, reserving consequences for further wilful disobedience.