The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-disclosure of information regarding political party funding under the Electoral Bond Scheme violated citizens' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and was arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. By a judgment dated 15 February 2024¹ [2024 INSC 113], this Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and the provisions of the Finance Act 2017 which amended the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1951 and the Income Tax Act 1961, unconstitutional on the ground that the non-disclosure of information regarding the funding of political parties is violative of the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The amendments which were introduced by the Finance Act 2017 to the provisions of the Companies Act 2013, permitting unlimited funding of political parties by corporate entities were held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. In order to give full effect to the judgment which was rendered by the Constitution Bench, this Court directed the State Bank of India² [“SBI”], which was the authorized Bank to deal with Electoral Bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme to submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased by the contributors and redeemed by political parties between 12 April 2019 (the date on which an interim order was passed by this Court directing the Election Commission of India³ [“ECI”] to collect details of the contributions) till 15 February 2024 (the date of the judgment).

3. This Court directed the SBI to submit the following details by 6 March 2024 to the ECI:

(a) Details of each Electoral Bond purchased including the date of purchase, the name of the purchaser and the denomination of the Electoral Bond.

(b) Details of each Electoral Bond redeemed by political parties including the date of encashment and the denomination of the Electoral Bond.

4. The ECI was directed to collate the information to be submitted by the SBI and publish it on its website by 13 March 2024. The directions of this Court are extracted below:

“219. In view of our discussion above, the following directions are issued:

(a) The issuing bank shall herewith stop the issuance of Electoral Bonds.

(b) SBI shall submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased since the Interim order of this Court dated 12 April 2019 till date to the ECI. The details shall include the date of purchase of each Electoral Bond, the name of the purchaser of the bond and the denomination of the Electoral Bond purchased.

(c) SBI shall submit the details of political parties which have received contributions through Electoral Bonds since the interim order of this Court dated 12 April 2019 till date to the ECI. SBI must disclose details of each Electoral Bond encashed by political parties which shall Include the date of encashment and the denomination of the Electoral Bond.

(d) SBI shall submit the above information to the ECI within three weeks from the date of this judgment, that is, by 6 March 2024.

(e) The ECI shall publish the information shared by the SBI on Its official website within one week of the receipt of the Information, that is, by 13 March 2024.

(f) Electoral Bonds which are within the validity period of fifteen days but that which have not been encashed by the political party yet shall be returned by the political party or the purchaser depending on who is in possession of the bond to the issuing bank. The Issuing bank, upon the return of the valid bond, shall refund the amount to the purchaser's account.”

5. The SBI filed a Miscellaneous Application before this Court two days before the expiry of the deadline seeking an extension of time until 30 June 2024 for complying with the directions. The petitioners before this Court - Association for Democratic Reforms⁴ [“ADR”] and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) - instituted a petition invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court against SBI for willful disobedience of the order of this Court.

6. In support of the application by the SBI, we have heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, senior counsel. Mr. Salve submitted that the information which was received by the SBI was maintained in two separate silos and was maintained with the utmost secrecy