Guwahati: The State Bank of India’s (SBI) request for additional time to provide details of electoral bonds to the Supreme Court has sparked controversy, especially considering the bank’s demonstrably swift response to similar government inquiries in the past.
While SBI claims disclosing donor information is a “laborious task” requiring months, documents accessed by The Reporter’s Collective (TRC) reveal the bank readily provided electoral bond data to the government within 48 hours on multiple occasions.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The report by TRC stated that this included details on both physical and electronic bond purchases and redemptions, raising concerns about the current delay.
Further doubts arise from SBI’s internal data management practices.
The bank claims data on bond buyers is stored separately from information on beneficiary parties, necessitating time-consuming reconciliation.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
However, documents show the government itself acknowledged in 2017 that SBI could link donors and beneficiary parties in real time when bonds were encashed.
This ability stems from two key factors.
The first one was KYC (Know Your Customer) process where each bond sale involved thorough buyer identification, ensuring traceability.
The second one was hidden serial numbers. In this process, each bond contained a unique serial number, visible only under ultraviolet light, allowing for further tracking.
The government, while defending the electoral bond scheme’s transparency, highlighted the presence of KYC validation and an audit trail.
Finance Ministry documents also confirmed the availability of purchaser records within the banking system for retrieval by enforcement agencies if needed.
SBI’s contrasting approach to data provision has drawn also criticism.
While seeking extended time from the apex court, the bank has faced accusations of sluggishness and lack of transparency. Even there were memes that mocked the SBI’s apparent inconsistency and have also gained traction online.
The report quoted Subhash Chandra Garg, a retired government official who served as the Finance and Economics Affairs secretary.
He oversaw the scheme’s implementation.
He stated that the information requested by the court could be readily provided without delay, questioning SBI’s motives for seeking additional time.
He played a key role in implementing the hidden serial number system upon SBI’s insistence.
Further assessing the report and given the available evidence and contrasting actions, the reasons behind SBI’s delay in providing electoral bond details to the Supreme Court remain unclear.
Garg in a statement to Mojo Story said, “To my mind, it is the lamest excuse which SBI has put in (before the Supreme Court)….It doesn’t require silos to be reconciled or connected etc…for furnishing this information the SBI needs no time at all. What SBI seems to be saying is that we will connect the buyers of the bonds and the recipients of the bonds…”
He added, “Even for doing that information, which is not required, the SBI will not take any more time. As I said earlier, every bond has one number so if you sort the information on this number you can get the information very easily …possibly the SBI has been motivated to file this application.”