- The SBI, India’s largest public-sector lender, plays a pivotal role in the sale and redemption of electoral bonds through adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs).
- However, the contents of these procedures remain shrouded in secrecy, sparking concerns about transparency and accountability in the electoral financing process.
- Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj’s quest to access the SOPs via the Right to Information (RTI) Act encountered roadblocks as the SBI denied her request, citing reasons of “commercial confidence”.
- The controversy surrounding electoral bonds intensified following a landmark verdict, where the court declared the electoral bond scheme unconstitutional.
- Despite the judicial mandate, the SBI’s reluctance to divulge its SOPs underscores persistent challenges in ensuring transparency and adherence to legal mandates in electoral financing.
- As the case awaits review by the CIC, its outcome holds far-reaching implications for electoral transparency and governance in India.
The State Bank of India (SBI), India’s largest public-sector lender, plays a pivotal role in the sale and redemption of electoral bonds through adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs). Instituted since April 2017, these SOPs outline the guidelines followed by all SBI branches in handling electoral bond transactions. However, the contents of these procedures remain shrouded in secrecy, sparking concerns about transparency and accountability in the electoral financing process.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj’s quest to access the SOPs via the Right to Information (RTI) Act encountered roadblocks as the SBI denied her request. Citing reasons of “commercial confidence” and asserting ownership of the information as its “intellectual property,” the bank rebuffed Bhardwaj’s efforts. Despite her subsequent appeal to the first appellate authority (FAA), the denial persisted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which shields information that could compromise a third party’s competitive position.
Unsatisfied with the response, Bhardwaj is poised to escalate the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC). Her contention revolves around the necessity of accessing the SOPs to unravel the intricacies of how SBI manages and tracks electoral bond transactions. By scrutinizing the SOPs, Bhardwaj aims to bolster transparency and accountability in electoral funding processes, particularly concerning the traceability of bonds through unique identification numbers.
The controversy surrounding electoral bonds intensified following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on February 15, 2024. In a significant verdict, the court declared the electoral bond scheme unconstitutional, emphasizing the electorate’s right to information and anonymity in the electoral process. In response, the SBI was directed to halt the issuance of bonds and disclose comprehensive details of bonds issued since 2019.
Despite the judicial mandate, the SBI’s reluctance to divulge its SOPs underscores persistent challenges in ensuring transparency and adherence to legal mandates in electoral financing. Bhardwaj’s persistent pursuit of information highlights the imperative of access to information in upholding democratic principles and fostering accountability in financial transactions related to elections.
As the case awaits review by the CIC, its outcome holds far-reaching implications for electoral transparency and governance in India. Bhardwaj’s unwavering commitment underscores the pivotal role of transparency advocates in navigating the complexities of electoral financing and safeguarding democratic norms against opacity and obfuscation.
(With inputs from agencies)
