State Bank of India refuses to divulge names of corporate donors buying up electoral bonds for political parties

By A Representative
The State Bank of India (SBI) -- the only bank authorised by the Government to sell Electoral Bonds (EBs) to sold to individuals or other entities to be given to political parties as a means to fund their poll activity -- has refused to divulge the identity and other details of buyers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
Introduced by the Government of India following a law passed in Parliament and notified by Union Finance Ministry in January 2018, EBs have so far been sold through various SBI branches in three phases -- in March, April and May, this year.
After waiting for the first two sale windows to close, senior RTI activist of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) Ventakesh Nayak submitted a plea to the SBI details of denomination-wise total number of electoral bonds sold in March and April 2018, along with the total number of buyers of each denomination.
Nayak also sought details total number of buyers of electoral bonds in each category -- individuals, company, firm, charitable trust and others who purchased electoral bonds; copies of application forms received against which electoral bonds were sold; copies of redemption slips received and accepted by political parties in relation to EBs; and methodology applied to ascertain whether or not a political party redeeming EBs had secured at least 1% of the votes polled during the last round of general elections to Parliament and state assemblies.
The SBI provided data about the number of EBs sold. Thus, the RTI reply said, SBI sold 776 EBs worth Rs. 333.48 crore during the two phases through 5 out of 11 notified branches. SBI's Mumbai branch recorded the highest sale of EBs (both phases included) at a little more than Rs 173 crore, followed by the Kolkata branch (Rs 70 crore), the New Delhi branch (Rs 63 crore and the Gandhinagar branch (Rs 19 crore).
The most number of EBs of the highest denomination, Rs 1 crore were sold through the Mumbai SBI branch (166 nos) followed by New Delhi branch (62 nos), Kolkata branch (40 nos), Chennai branch (14 nos) and Gandhinagar branch (9 nos).
In terms of absolute numbers, EBs of Rs.10 lakh denomination were sold the most, netting Rs 45.80 crore. However EBs of Rs 1 crore denomination were sold to the tune of Rs 291 crore through multiple branches of the Bank. On the other hand, only 17 EBs of Rs 1,000 denomination and 10 of Rs. 1,00,000 were sold during this period.
Further details show that duirng the first phase, of March 2018,520 EBs worth a little more than Rs 222 crore of various denominations were sold through SBI's designated branches in major metropolital cities. But during the second phase, only 256 EBs worth Rs 101 crore worth of EBs were sold, which is 50% lesser than the sale clocked during the first phase.
Says Nayak, "The above data about the implementation of the EB scheme obtained from SBI under the RTI Act clearly indicates that it is serving the super-rich and somewhat less rich donors more than the rest of the citizenry", regretting, SBI withheld information about who all bought the bonds by "wrongful" interpretating the RTI Act.
According to Nayak, "The application form used by the buyer and the redemption slip filled up by the political party for claiming the funds presented by the donor have been rejected under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act by the CPIO claiming 'fiduciary' relationship", adding, "So the CPIO is treating both the buyer of EBs and the political parties as being in a 'fiduciary' relationship with SBI!"
Even worse, Nayak says, "Is the SBI CPIO's claim that all reports sent to the Government of India and the RBI regarding the sale and redemption of EBs are also covered by 'fiduciary' relationship."
Continues Nayak, "The SBI's CPIO has also invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, namely the protection available for personal information against unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, to reject access to information about both buyers of EBs and political parties which redeemed them."
Calling it "an incorrect decision", Nayak says, "If the reply is based on factual data, then it implies that all EBs were bought only by individuals and not corporations, firms, associations or trusts", which is clearly not true.
"However", he adds, "It is difficult to reasonably conjecture that none of these private entities used EBs to make donations to political parties. Prior to the launch of the EB scheme, corporations and Electoral Trusts made large-sized donations to political parties. This information is available on the website of the Election Commission of India (ECI) which the Association for Democratic Reforms analyses and reports upon from time to time."

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

Search This Blog