The journalist that wrote this article doesn't understand what he's writing about. When such articles appear on Bloomberg or Reuters, they are usually computer-generated, so programming bugs can be blamed for something stupid being written. But here a clueless and ignorant human being is probably responsible for the quote.
There are no "Basel-compliant" or "Basel III compliant" bonds. This just makes no sense.
These SBI bonds qualify (supposedly) as Tier 2 capital. A good discussion of what this means is found in this FDIC paper, pages 2.1-3 and 4 and in Basel III definitions of regulatory capital (10-16 et al).
Briefly: Tier 2 bonds are issued usually by banks. Typically, they are subordinated debt - below tier 1 debt. Banks often classify their tier 2 into upper and lower.
Upper tier 2 bonds typically have coupons that are "deferrable" and "cumulative", which makes these bonds senior to tier 1 (deposits, dividends on preferred equity, etc..).
Lower tier 2 bonds are subordinate to depositors' and common and preferred shareholders' claims. Realistically, they will have 0 recovery if the institution goes under. Compared to the same bank's senior bonds, they typically have a notch lower agency ratings and yield as much as 1-2% more.
Basel III and various local regulators require specific criteria for bonds to qualify as Tier 2 capital, and also limit how much of it an institution can sell.
Note that Basel III completely abolished Tier 3 capital, which some banks (especially badly run and corrupt banks in emerging markets) used to use for issuing junk bonds. So perhaps the article meant "we used to issue Tier 3 junk; now that we're no longer allowed by foreign regulators, we issue Tier 2 junk".