The State Bank of India (SBI) has declined to disclose the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for electoral bonds, sparking controversy and raising concerns about transparency in political funding.
Background
The electoral bond scheme, introduced in April 2017, aims to promote transparency in political funding by channeling donations through designated SBI branches.
SBI’s Denial:
SBI cites reasons such as commercial confidence and intellectual property rights for withholding the SOPs related to electoral bonds.
Activists’ Response:
Transparency activists, including Anjali Bhardwaj, express dissatisfaction and file appeals seeking intervention from the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Concerns Raised:
Critics question the lack of clarity regarding how SBI manages transaction data for electoral bonds, raising concerns about potential tracking and monitoring of bond transactions.
Legal Framework:
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act allows entities to withhold information that could harm their competitive position or reveal trade secrets, but activists argue for greater transparency.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down certain aspects of the electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional and ordering disclosure of bond details, SBI continues to withhold crucial information.
Broader Implications:
SBI’s refusal to disclose the SOPs for electoral bonds raises broader questions about the accountability of public institutions and the need for greater transparency in political financing.
Activists’ Advocacy:
Transparency activists continue to advocate for greater disclosure and accountability to ensure that the electoral process remains fair and transparent.
Way Forward:
In light of the controversy, there is a pressing need for policymakers and regulatory bodies to review the transparency framework surrounding electoral bonds and ensure that public institutions adhere to principles of accountability and transparency.
