Data shows the company has donated a total of Rs 52 crore via electoral bonds, half of this being contributed after its promoter P Sarath Reddy turned approved in Delhi excise policy case.
Data on electoral bonds was submitted to EC by SBI in compliance with deadline set by Supreme Court which had also directed poll panel to make this data public by 15 March.
In an affidavit to SC SBI stated that the date of purchase of each electoral bond, and the name of the purchaser has been furnished to the Election Commission of India.
Striking down the bond scheme on 15 February, the court had ordered the bank to furnish details of purchasers and redeemers by 6 March. The bank wanted time till 30 June.
For the Supreme Court to bless the SBI’s plea for an extension in electoral bonds case until 30 June would be tantamount to stamping on the spirit of democracy while performing its rituals.
The issues raised by the SBI do not appear to be germane to the Supreme Court’s direction. The court’s directions brook no ambiguity: furnish information from record.
Former government officials and bankers involved with the electoral bonds scheme say SBI can’t match donors and receivers in any case, but is using this to justify the delay.
Considering the exclusive nature of this information, one would have expected it to act with promptitude and disclose the relevant information, rather than applying for an extension.
Mamdani’s politics feels unusual compared to India’s current climate. He unapologetically foregrounds Muslim identity at a time when doing so in India invites scrutiny.
On 4 November 2025, NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Arun Baroka, noted that WhatsApp and Meta are distinct legal entities.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
COMMENTS