‘SBI’s request for extension in electoral bonds case is an eyewash’: Thomas Franco

Ex-president of the All India State Bank Officers’ Federation says SBI’s request for extension in revealing contributors is made under pressure.

Thomas Franco said that citizens’ faith in the SBI as the one bank they could rely on had been eroded following the Supreme Court ruling over the electoral bond scheme. | Photo Credit: S Krishnamoorthy/ The Hindu

In a significant ruling on February 16, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared the electoral bond scheme for political funding unconstitutional and nullified it. The Court instructed the State Bank of India to disclose the names of contributors to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by March 6, with the ECI expected to publish the details by March 13. However, three days before the deadline, the SBI appealed to the top court for a three-month extension until June 30, citing the complexity of decoding electoral bonds and matching donors. The court is scheduled to hear SBI’s appeal on March 11, alongside a contempt petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners in the electoral bond case. Thomas Franco, ex-President of the All India State Bank Officers’ Federation, criticised the SBI’s extension request, terming it a superficial measure taken under pressure. Franco, who served 38 years in the SBI and was the former general secretary of the All India Bank Officers’ Confederation, spoke to Frontline. Edited excerpts: 

How tenable is the SBI’s plea that the retrieval of information from each “silo” and the procedure of matching the information from one ‘silo’ to that of the other was time-consuming?

It is a very silly argument. Even during the days of manual accounting, the bank books were balanced every day. It continues to be so. Without balancing the books, no one can leave the bank. In this case, we are talking about 22, 217 entries. How long will it take to tally? The meaning of two silos is this: the bonds issued are in one, and the bonds encashed are in the other. But it is matched every time an encashment is made. One has to check if it is a genuine bond that is encashed. For that, it can be checked in the system. What has not been sold may be held manually. What is paid goes to the relevant branch. It is subjected to audit. It is kept secret. People are not going to see who has purchased and who has received the money. The audit ensures that the accounts are maintained property. These are transactions made only four times a year for a few days. It is not happening every day. It is restricted to 29 branches. Not all 29 branches have sold these bonds also. When there is a nodal branch which is maintaining all the data, it doesn’t require so much time at all. Why did the SBI require Rs 60 lakh to develop an IT system for floating electoral bonds? Even if they wanted to maintain secrecy, Rs 60 lakh is too much.  

The SBI has also said that bonds are kept manually in sealed covers at the headquarters; therefore, it requires more time.

Those are the encashed bonds. The only difference is that they are in a sealed cover so that everybody doesn’t have access to it. The joint custodians–the accountant and the cash officer–will be holding them. But it is already entered into the system. One doesn’t have to open every sealed cover and verify.  

Is the decoding of the bonds and matching donors a complex process?

Not at all. It is not a cash transaction. It is being done through an account. Someone is giving the money, the bond is issued, and then it comes for encashment. One verifies and pays, all of which is reconciled. We used to issue drafts in crores (of rupees). This is also similar to the issuing of a draft.

How much time would the process normally take?

It would have been completed in one or two hours. Some others have said it will take a few minutes. In a digital era, these things do not require so much time at all. The order came on February 15. What was the SBI doing for 20 days, I wonder! As for the ruling party, the BJP, the more it hides, it will get a bad name. Already people are calling the EB scheme a scam. Let the public know who gave how much to which political party. In any case, not all funding is being done through electoral bonds. I hope the Supreme Court stands by the ruling. I am quite sure the Government of India will file an appeal.

How does this move, asking for more time, affect the reputation of the SBI itself?

On many occasions, the SBI has given replies to many queries through the Right To Information process. Quite a lot of details were provided. It never takes a long time. The secrecy was only related to who bought the bonds, and who encashed them. The number of bonds issued and denominations are available from RTI replies. This itself proves that it does not require so much time. The SBI is trying to bluff its way through. It has already come under serious criticism. Political parties are holding demonstrations in front of SBI branches.

People always believed that the SBI was one bank they could rely upon. But that faith is getting eroded now. It already got eroded when huge loans were given to one corporate entity. Similarly, another corporate entity had huge outstanding loans. And one day he declared he is insolvent. His company was bought by his brother. The SBI is the lead bank on all this. There have been wrong decisions made by the management. Today, the SBI is being discussed negatively in so many TV debates.

Have there been occasions where pressure was exerted on top public sector banks?

There have been occasions in the past where SBI chiefs have held their ground. Sanjay Gandhi [allegedly] wanted the SBI to give a particular loan to somebody. Pranab Mukherjee was the then Minister of State for Finance and R.K. Talwar the SBI Chairman. He assessed the loan request and conveyed to the minister that it could not be given. He was told to comply but he refused to oblige. Legally, the government cannot take any action. The only thing it can do is not give an extension or a posting after retirement.

Now people are diffident. All kinds of harassment are possible with this government in power. What happened to Ashok Lavasa is an example. When he gave a dissent note to the Election Commission, his entire family was harassed. Maybe that is why the SBI chairman decided to play it safe. The matter is now in court. I hope the SBI turns around and says that it made a mistake and that they have reconciled the entries and submit as directed by the highest court of the country

Is it possible that the connection between the giver and the recipient cannot be established?

We know who encashed them. Now there are also these electoral trusts that take these bonds and hand them over to political parties. So the payment is made to the political party only. Electoral trusts were brought in 2013 under an Act. That system is still continuing. It was not a prayer in the petition that the SBI should give all this information. It was the judges who gave the ruling that the SBI should publish this data as the public has the right to know. To save the image of the bank and avoid contempt, the SBI Chairman must submit the list on the 11th morning. Hope he does that and saves the image of the bank and himself.