A bank asks for more time
Published 5 October 2026
Thursday, February 15, 2024: the directions and the clock. The judgment's operative directions ran in a fixed order. The issuing bank was to stop issuing electoral bonds at once. The State Bank was to give the Election Commission the details of bonds bought since the interim order of 12 April 2019, meaning the date of purchase, the purchaser's name and the denomination, and the details of the parties that encashed them, meaning the date of encashment and the denomination, within three weeks of the judgment, that is by 6 March 2024. The Commission was to publish what it received on its website within a week of receipt, by 13 March 2024. Any bond still inside its 15-day validity that the party had not yet encashed was to be returned by the party or the purchaser, whichever held it, to the issuing bank, which would refund the amount to the purchaser's account. Pending applications were disposed of. Source: Judgment, ADR v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113 (Feb 15, 2024)
Monday, March 11, 2024: The extension is refused. The judgment gave the State Bank of India until March 6, 2024 to give the ECI the details. Two days before that, the bank applied (MA 486/2024) for time until June 30, 2024. ADR, Common Cause and the CPI(M) filed contempt petitions saying the delay was meant to keep the data out of public view before the Lok Sabha polls, according to The Hindu. The five judges of the Constitution Bench decided the application in 2024 INSC 195. Source: Supreme Court order of Mar 11, 2024
The SBI's case, as recorded in the order, was that 22,217 bonds were bought, which "would cumulatively add up to 44,434 data sets since there are two silos"; that clause 7.1.2 of its standard operating procedure says no purchaser details are entered in the core banking system; and that redemption was through 29 designated branches. Harish Salve appeared for the SBI and Tushar Mehta was the Solicitor General. The Hindu reported an exchange from the hearing: When Mr Salve called matching donors with parties "time-consuming and complex", the Chief Justice said "But we did not tell you to match the details. We had only asked you to do a plain disclosure." That quote is from the Hindu's report and not from the order text. Source: The Hindu, SBI affidavit of Mar 13, 2024
The order dismissed the extension application and directed the SBI to disclose by close of business on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, with the ECI to publish by 5 pm on Friday, March 15, 2024. The SBI's chairman and managing director had to file an affidavit of compliance. The Court was "not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction at this stage" but warned of it. Source: Supreme Court order of Mar 11, 2024
Friday, March 15 and Sunday, March 17, 2024: The sealed covers. The Court had a pending application from the Election Commission asking for return of the sealed-cover documents it had been given under the 2019 interim order. LiveLaw reports that the ECI "did not retain copies to maintain confidentiality", and the bench told its Registrar General to scan and digitise them first. SCC Online reports that on March 15 the Court said the SBI should disclose the "unique alphanumeric code printed on each electoral bond, which helps match donors with political parties", issued notice to the SBI and listed the matter for March 18. Source: LiveLaw, Mar 18, 2024
The ECI uploaded the sealed-cover data, the filings by the parties, on Sunday, March 17, 2024. The ECI statement quoted in The Hindu reads: "Data so received from political parties was deposited in the Supreme Court without opening sealed covers. In pursuance of the Supreme Court's order dated March 15, 2024, the Registry of the Supreme Court has returned physical copies along with a digitized record of the same in a pen drive in sealed cover." Source: The Hindu, ECI makes fresh bond data public
Monday, March 18, 2024: "all details", including the alphanumeric number. The order (MA 596/2024 in MA 486/2024 in W.P.(C) 880/2017) was signed by the same five judges and marked Reportable. The text read here is a mirror on courtscast.com, not the Court's own host. It dealt with two applications. The first (Diary No. 12580/2024) sought to push the date of disclosure back before April 12, 2019. The Court said the directions and (c) apply "with effect from 12 April 2019", that the relief sought "would amount to a substantive modification of the judgment" and "cannot be dealt with in a Miscellaneous Application", and dismissed it as "not maintainable". Source: Order of Mar 18, 2024 (courtscast mirror)
On the second application, the Court read para 219 and said the SBI "was required to submit all details" and that "include" in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) is "illustrative and not exhaustive". So "SBI is required to make a complete disclosure of all details in its possession. This will also comprehend the alphanumeric number and serial number of the Electoral Bonds which were purchased and redeemed". It recorded that Mr Salve "states that there is no reservation on the part of the SBI in disclosing all details which are in its possession and custody." It required the SBI's chairman and managing director to file an affidavit by 5 pm on March 21, 2024 that the SBI "has disclosed all details... And that no details have been withheld", and it told the ECI to "upload the details forthwith". Source: Order of Mar 18, 2024 (courtscast mirror)
The hearing, as NDTV reported it, had the Chief Justice saying: "The SBI's attitude seems to be 'you tell us what to disclose, we will disclose'. That does not seem to be fair. When we say 'all details', it includes all conceivable data... All details should come out. We want to ensure that nothing has been suppressed." And: "Don't wait for the orders of the court. We bank on the fact that the bank will be candid." Mr Salve, NDTV reported, said the alphanumeric number, "a unique figure mentioned on each electoral bond that can be read only under UV light, is only a security feature and separate from the audit trail". Source: NDTV, Mar 18, 2024
Why the number matters: It is the key that lets a purchase record be linked to its redemption record, so that donors can be matched to parties. Reuters reported that day that the Court gave the SBI until Thursday to give the ECI "the unique identification numbers of the bonds, so as to allow donors to be matched with recipients". It noted that the March 14 data did not link donors to recipients, but "showed that nearly half of all donations were received by the Bharatiya Janata Party", and named Vedanta, Bharti Airtel, the RPSG Group and Essel Mining among the top funders. Source: Reuters, Mar 18, 2024
Thursday, March 21, 2024: The SBI affidavit. The Press Information Bureau release of the same day says: "In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions, contained in its order dated Feb 15, March 11, 2024 and March 18, 2024 (in the matter of WPC NO.880 of 2017), the State Bank of India (SBI) has provided the data pertaining to the electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) today ie March 21, 2024." The ECI uploaded the data "on 'as is where is basis'" and pointed to a page on its site. Source: PIB release, Mar 21, 2024
SBI Chairman Dinesh Kumar Khara said in his affidavit, as the Indian Express quotes it, that "on 21.03.2024, the State Bank of India has provided/disclosed all details of the electoral bonds which are in its possession and custody to the Election Commission of India". The purchaser fields it listed were serial number, URN number, journal date, date of purchase, bond number, status, date of expiry, name of the purchaser, prefix, bond number, denomination, issue branch code, issue teller and status. The redemption fields were serial number, date of encashment, name of political party, last four digits of the account number, prefix, bond number, denomination, pay branch code and pay teller. Source: The Indian Express, SBI affidavit
The affidavit said full bank account numbers and "KYC details of political parties are not being made public as it may compromise the security of the account (cyber security)", and that purchasers' KYC details "are also not being made public for security reasons, apart from the fact that such information is not fed/collated in the system. However, they are not necessary for identifying the political parties". The phrase "not fed/collated in the system" is the SBI's own statement that purchaser KYC was not held in the system data, which echoes clause 7.1.2 of its procedure as quoted in the March 11 order. The SBI listed what was now disclosed: (a) the name of the purchaser; (b) the denomination and specific number of the bond; (c) the name of the party that encashed it; (d) the last four digits of the party's account; and (e) the denomination and number of the bond encashed. Source: The Indian Express, SBI affidavit
The Hindu's report of the affidavit adds that the SBI's earlier packages were handed over as two sets, one of purchasers and one of parties that encashed, which matches the "two silos" the SBI described to the Court. LiveLaw describes the same two "information packets". Source: The Hindu, SBI compliance affidavit
Get the next file
One email when a new file is published. No paid service needed.