On March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose every electoral-bond detail in its possession, explicitly including each bond’s alphanumeric and serial numbers. SBI’s Chairman and Managing Director had to file an affidavit by 5 p.m. on March 21 confirming that the bank had disclosed everything and withheld nothing.
What the Supreme Court ordered on March 18
In its order in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, the Court clarified that “complete disclosure of all details” meant all details held by SBI—not only the fields previously identified in the disclosure process. It specifically said the requirement included the alphanumeric number and serial number of electoral bonds that had been purchased and redeemed.
The Court directed SBI’s Chairman and Managing Director to file an affidavit by 5 p.m. on March 21, 2024, confirming that all required information had been disclosed and that no details had been withheld. It also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to upload SBI’s information forthwith after receiving the bank’s communication. Read the March 18 order.
Why unique bond numbers mattered
The alphanumeric and serial numbers are identifiers attached to individual bonds. Requiring them expanded the disclosure beyond basic purchase and redemption fields: the Court said SBI had to provide the identifying numbers in its custody as part of complete disclosure. The order itself does not establish what any particular code reveals about a donor or political party, so the significance of a specific bond number should not be inferred without examining the disclosed records and their matching data.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
March 15 and March 21 were different deadlines
The Court’s March 15 order addressed records already held in the Court’s custody. It directed that those ECI-held records be digitized and uploaded by 5 p.m. on March 17. The order also recorded a submission that SBI had not disclosed the bonds’ alphanumeric numbers and issued notice to the bank, returnable March 18. Read the March 15 order.
The March 21 deadline came from the later order and applied to SBI’s complete disclosure and its managing director’s affidavit. It was not the deadline for uploading the earlier batch of court-held records.
What SBI reportedly told the Court
The Indian Express reported that SBI’s affidavit said the bank had provided all details in its possession and custody to the ECI on March 21. The reported data included purchaser and redemption information such as bond or serial number, date, denomination, party name and certain account identifiers. The report said complete bank account numbers and KYC details were not made public; that explanation was attributed to SBI, not stated as a separate ruling in the March 18 order. Read the Indian Express report.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the directions followed the February judgment
The March orders followed the Constitution Bench judgment of February 15, 2024, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. The March 15 and March 18 orders refer to disclosure requirements arising from that judgment. The March 18 order’s practical clarification was that SBI’s disclosure had to include the unique alphanumeric and serial numbers, not just the other information it had already been directed to provide.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
