The autonomy of institutions under the government is a gift of democracy. Events during the last ten years, however, indicate that this autonomy has been undermined, damaging democratic rights. In spite of that, the suggestion that the major nationalised bank in the country is inclined to screen the government from scrutiny and, perhaps, help it in the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections is disturbing in a different way because the bank is directly a repository of the people’s trust. The Supreme Court annulled the electoral bonds scheme for the funding of political parties in February. Electoral bonds were introduced to preserve the anonymity of donors to political parties. In its ruling, the court called the scheme unconstitutional and directed the State Bank of India, empowered to operate the scheme, to submit details of the donors, amounts and so on to the Election Commission of India by March 6. Two days before the deadline, the SBI asked for an extension to June 30, claiming that recovering the data was a complicated process. The apex court has now, quite correctly, rapped the errant bank on its knuckles, dismissing its appeal for an extension of the time period and directing it to furnish the details by today.

Two main objections were made to the SBI’s argument by two non-governmental organisations that had filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court and a watchdog group composed of retired bureaucrats, that has written to the ECI. One, that the technical hurdles delaying the retrieval of data cited by the SBI are fictitious — reasons have been given in support — and, two, that the SBI’s favoured deadline falls, noticeably, after the Lok Sabha elections. The SBI’s last-minute petition was being seen — maybe not just by those who have protested formally — as defying the court’s order and undermining its authority, violating, in effect, the principles of the Constitution. It ignores the right to know, by virtue of which, in this case, voters may make fully informed choices. The issue goes to the heart of democratic choice and representation. The retired civil servants’ Constitutional Conduct Group mentioned that suppressing donor identities also meant screening the possible granting of favours to them or the pressuring of reluctant ones. Such suspicions are not encouraging for the voter. The CCG has asked the ECI to withhold scheduling the elections till the SBI has disclosed the data required. The chain of events exemplifies the edginess surrounding every event and a sense of disillusion regarding some of the most trusted institutions.