Thread by @someshjha7

I follow up on @nit_set's brilliant series.

RTI docs show how the government knew that putting serial number on electoral bonds may lead to identification of donor. But when SBI told government that it is necessary due to regulatory factors, they agreed.

business-standard.com/article/financ…

@nit_set SBI told finmin that though the bonds will not carry the name of the buyer they “will necessarily need a serial number” as it will leave no audit trail for internal control and reconciliation and identifying the genuineness of the electoral bonds will become difficult.

To this, the finmin drafted a reply saying “putting a serial number would establish a link between the donor & the political party. This could discourage them to use such bonds. Hence, SBI may think of other security features to establish the genuineness of electoral bonds.”

However, the finance ministry agreed to dilute its stance after the SBI held a meeting with state-owned Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL), which has been authorised to print the electoral bonds, on 6 February.

Reversing its position, the finmin said in a response to SBI that the “issues raised by SBI are valid and a bond not having any unique serial number will create a lot of operational difficulties for the bank and will also bring a lot of risks on the bank.”

In April 2018, @poonamjourno reported that these bonds have a secret alphanumeric code which was visible under UV light. This was, acc. to an agreement between SBI and SPMCIL in its February meeting following which the finance ministry had changed its stance on the serial number.

After media reports on a secret unique number on electoral bonds, a finmin official prepared an unsigned handwritten note – part of the official records – which said “we had not prescribed detail features. We had refused for any unique number. SBI had asked for it.”