New Delhi: The State Bank of India (SBI) declined to disclose the specifics of its ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ (SOP) followed in the process of storing electoral bond-related data in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed last month.
The SBI has cited its SOP as grounds for requesting an additional four months from the Supreme Court to furnish information on the buyers and sellers of electoral bonds days before the deadline set by the top court.
Due to the lack of clarity over the manner in which SBI recorded data for transactions made in connection with electoral bonds, a copy of the SOP was sought under the RTI Act by activist Anjali Bharadwaj.
The SBI, in its response, said “ [These] are internal guidelines with regard to Sale and Redemption of Electoral Bonds (meant for internal circulation only)” while citing section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as grounds to deny this information.
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act pertains to “information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;”.
“The SBI has blandly invoked the exemption clause without demonstrating how the disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party,” Bharadwaj said.
Expressing shock and concern over the SBI’s persistent denial of information regarding electoral bonds, Bharadwaj said, “It is shocking to note that even after the Supreme Court has struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional, and has explicitly directed and ensured disclosure of all details of EBs purchased and redeemed, the SBI continues to deny important information about the operation of the Electoral Bonds Scheme.
Also read: Why Did SBI Record Hidden Bonds Code – After Govt Said in 2018 That it Didn’t?
The SOP would reveal the official instructions governing the particulars of information that were to be stored, and the form and manner in which information was to be maintained by SBI on the sale and redemption of EBs.”
While citing its SOP as grounds for requesting additional time from the Supreme Court, the SBI in its plea had said, “In order to protect the Donors anonymity and to maintain confidentiality/secrecy, the Applicant Bank has laid down a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for 29 Authorised Branches, spread all over India, with regard to Sale and Redemption of Electoral Bonds. Section 7.1.2 of the said SOP categorically provided: No details of Bond Purchaser including KYC and other details will be entered in CBS.” (Core Banking System).”
After the Supreme Court dismissed SBI’s plea, the bank revealed the name of purchasers, the recipient parties as well as the unique alphanumeric code of bonds purchased and encashed. This information allowed the donors to be matched with the parties they had donated to.
This also confirmed that the alphanumeric code was, in fact, tagged with the purchase and redemption transaction of each bond despite the finance ministry falsely claiming that the number could not be used to track the donation or the buyer.
In a press release in 2018, the ministry had said “This number is not noted by the SBI in any
record associated with buyer or political party depositing a particular electoral bond. It is, thus, not linked to any party transaction when the Bank issues a bond to the buyer. As such the number is not being used or can be used to track the donation or the buyer. SBI does not share the serial number with anybody, including the Government and users.”
The SBI’s denial of information regarding its SOP has only fuelled more doubts over whether the bank was recording data in a manner that would enable tracking of electoral bonds, contrary to the government’s claims.