Live
- Muzigal launches its State-of-the-art Music Academy in Nallagandla, Hyderabad
- Thoughtful Christmas Gifts for Every Loved One
- South Korea: Finance minister silent on martial law probe amid speculation on acting president's role
- Karnataka Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar Vows To Pursue Justice Against CT Ravi
- Stands By Vijayaraghavan Amid Row Over Remarks On Gandhis
- Karnataka Legislative Council Chairman Denies Recording Controversial Exchange
- Lexus India to Redefine Luxury Mobility at Bharat Mobility Global Expo 2025
- Hindustan Zinc Supported Farmers Achieve INR 5 Cr Revenue Through Five Farmer Produce Organizations
- Nearly 10 lakh job letters issued under Rozgar Mela since 2022: PM Modi
- Harish Rao Criticizes Congress Rule and Revanth Reddy’s Leadership in Warangal
SBI Appeals For Extension In Electoral Bond Disclosure, Supreme Court Grapples With Key Constitutional Challenge
- Explore the latest developments in the State Bank of India's appeal for an extension to disclose information on electoral bonds, currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
- Amidst allegations of contempt and constitutional violations, this article outlines key points, including a five-judge Constitution bench, the scrapping of the electoral bonds scheme, and the Election Commission's directives.
The ongoing legal saga surrounding electoral bonds takes a significant turn as the State Bank of India (SBI) files an application seeking an extension until June 30 to submit crucial information on the controversial bonds. Here are the top 10 key points shaping this unfolding narrative:
1. **Constitution Bench Led by Chief Justice Chandrachud:**
A five-judge Constitution bench, spearheaded by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and featuring Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, is currently deliberating on the SBI's plea.
2. **Court Directs SBI to Detail Encashed Electoral Bonds:**
The bench instructs the national bank to provide detailed information on each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the recent scrapping of the electoral bonds scheme.
3. **Contempt Plea Against SBI by Non-Profits:**
Simultaneously, non-profit organizations Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause present a separate plea, alleging contempt against the SBI for purportedly disobeying the court order to disclose information by March 6.
4. **February 15 Bench Decision Deemed Electoral Bonds Unconstitutional:**
On February 15, the Constitution bench declares the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, emphasizing violations of the right to information, Article 14, and the principles of free and fair elections.
5. **Allegations of Violations of Rights and Constitutional Principles:**
The court asserts that electoral bonds violate citizens' right to information, Article 14 ensuring equality, and undermine the constitutional principle of free and fair elections.
6. **Election Commission Ordered to Disclose Donor Details:**
The bench instructs the Election Commission to disclose details of donors, their donation amounts, and the recipients. This information is mandated to be published on the Commission's website by March 13.
7. **Deadline for SBI to Submit Bond Details by March 6:**
The SBI is initially directed to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission by March 6.
8. **SBI Requests Extension, Citing Complexity and Anonymity Concerns:**
On March 4, the SBI requests an extension until June 30, contending that retrieving the information is a time-consuming task, further complicated by the need to maintain anonymity.
9. **Congress Allegations Against BJP and SBI:**
The Congress alleges that the BJP is using the SBI as a shield, suggesting that the extension request is a tactic to withhold data until the Lok Sabha elections.
10. **Congress Questions SBI's Timeframe Given Technological Capabilities:**
The Congress questions the SBI's claim, pointing out the bank's advanced technological capabilities, with 48 crore bank accounts, 66,000 ATMs, and nearly 23,000 branches, arguing that the five-month extension seems disproportionate for sharing data on just 22,217 electoral bonds.
