Opposition Criticizes SBI's Delay In Disclosing Electoral Bond Details: A Cloak Of Secrecy?

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the State Bank of India (SBI) have come under fire from the opposition following the lender's request for more time from the Supreme Court to reveal details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties.

Congress Member of Parliament, Manish Tewari, lambasted SBI for seeking an extension to disclose electoral bond details, urging the Supreme Court to take a stern stance against the bank's actions. Tewari emphasized the importance of transparency before the General Elections, calling for full disclosure of the donors and any potential quid pro quo involved.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi echoed similar sentiments, denouncing the move as a desperate attempt to conceal Prime Minister Narendra Modi's alleged involvement in the "donation business" ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.

Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra adopted her trademark caustic tone, mocking the relationship between SBI and PM Modi, suggesting a bond between the two that transcends the mandated disclosure of electoral bonds.

Senior Congress leader and advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi accused SBI of deliberately obstructing disclosure, foreseeing such tactics on the day of the Supreme Court's judgment on electoral bonds.

CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury expressed suspicion over SBI's actions, questioning whether the extension sought till after the elections aims to shield Modi and the BJP from scrutiny over potential quid pro quo arrangements.

The Supreme Court's intervention in ending the controversial electoral bonds scheme underscored concerns over transparency and citizens' right to information. The subsequent directive to SBI to cease issuing bonds and provide donation details to the Election Commission by March 13 was intended to enhance transparency in political funding.

However, SBI's recent plea to extend the deadline until June 30, citing complexities in decoding and matching donors to donations due to anonymity measures, has drawn criticism from the opposition, raising questions about transparency and accountability in electoral financing.