India's Supreme Court today asked State Bank of India (SBI), the country's largest commercial bank, to furnish by tomorrow the details of electoral bonds that allowed anonymous funding of political parties.

The apex court, which on February 15 scrapped the electoral bond scheme as "unconstitutional", asked SBI to provide the details of bonds to the Election Commission of India and asked the poll body to upload the information on its website by 5:00pm on March 15.

In giving its order, a five-judge bench of the apex court rejected a plea filed by SBI seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose details of electoral bonds.

The bench also comprised justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.

The Supreme Court pulled up SBI over delay in disclosure of details about each electoral bond encashed by political parties and said it expects some candour from the bank.

"Submissions of the SBI in its application indicates that the information sought is readily available. Thus, the application by SBI seeking extension of time until June 30 is dismissed," Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said, reports our New Delhi correspondent.

"Our judgment is dated February 15. We are on March 11. In the past 26 days, what steps you have taken? Your application is silent on that. We expect some candour from the State Bank of India," Justice Chandrachud said.

The state-owned bank told the top court it needed time to submit details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission as it is still collating data.

The top court was hearing an application filed by SBI seeking extension till June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond scheme.

The Supreme Court had last month asked SBI to furnish the details of the bonds' donors, the amount donated, and the recipients to EC by March 6. The EC was told to then publish the information on its official website by March 13.

In a landmark ruling on February 15, the five-judge constitution bench scrapped the electoral bonds scheme that allowed opaque political funding, calling it "unconstitutional".