Supreme Court rejects plea for SIT probe into misuse of Electoral Bonds by political parties

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the demand for a probe into the sale and purchase of electoral bonds under the scheme struck down by a Constitution Bench in February this year [Common Cause and Anr v. Union of India]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a batch of petitions that in particular sought a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the misuse of electoral bonds scheme, particularly the allegations of quid pro quo between donors and political parties."We decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution," the Court ordered. The Court at the outset noted that on the date of purchase of electoral bonds, there was a statutory enactment of the parliament permitting such purchase and donation of the same to the political parties.It then went on to observe that there were only assumptions at this stage that there had been quid pro quo behind donations to the political parties."The petitions are founded on two assumptions that there was a quid pro quo in cases where there was award of contract or change in policy and that certain officials of investigative agency was involved and thereby probe by normal process of law will not be fair or independent. We have highlighted underlying premise of submissions to indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and would require court to enter into roving inquiry into purchase of electoral bonds, donations made to political parties and arrangements made in nature of quid pro quo.".The Court added that individual grievances would have to be pursued through appropriate remedies under the law. "Where there is a refusal to investigate or closure report has been filed appropriate remedies can be taken under law governing criminal procedure or as the case may be under Article 226," it added.The bench further said that absent a recourse to remedies available under law, it would be premature and inappropriate for the court to intervene as Article 32 plea must be preceded by normal remedies under the lawIntervention of this court at this stage would postulate that normal remedies under the law would not be efficacious, it added."The Court entertained petitions challenging electoral bonds since there was an aspect of judicial review. But the cases involving criminal wrongdoing should not be under article 32 when there are remedies under the law.".Supreme Court rebukes SCBA President for seeking review of Electoral Bonds judgment.The top court also said that probing proceeds of crime or reopening of income tax assessment would impinge upon statutory functions of the authorities who are entrusted to make inquiries under the relevant law. "Thus we are of the view that constitution of a SIT headed by a former SC judge or otherwise should not be ordered when remedies under law governing criminal procedure is not availed," it added..One of the petitions had been filed jointly by Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation, both registered societies.The plea said that the SIT probe was required to unravel alleged conspiracies and scams carried out through the electoral bonds scheme, which enabled anonymous donations to political parties.The petition was filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, and drawn by advocates Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri.Another petition was filed to confiscate all the money collected by political parties under the electoral bonds scheme of 2018..During the hearing, Bhushan said the disclosure of details related to electoral bonds had made the worst fears come true."There is quid pro quo and it is for granting contracts," he submitted.However, the Court expressed doubt regarding any intervention and asked why the normal process of law should not be followed."Unless there is investigation it will not go anywhere.. it involves political parties, influential corporates and also premier investigating agencies. one of the worst large scale financial scams of this country with money trail," Bhushan responded..The Court, however, observed that an SIT may not be able to probe quid pro quo."We struck down electoral bonds and ordered disclosure. This could have been dealt in that case only. we went till certain point. we are not saying res judicata," CJI Chandrachud said.Bhushan said the government, the premier investigating agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation, top corporate houses and the ruling party seem to be involved.These are allegations, CJI Chandrachud remarked.Continuing with his arguments, Bhushan submitted that nothing would come out a normal FIR and demanded that the probe must be monitored by a retired judge of the top court.He also referred to instances where electoral bonds had been purchased after initiation of probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)."But there are (other) remedies Mr Bhushan. How can the court intervene in such a scenario," CJI Chandrachud said.However, Bhushan persisted with this arguments and submitted that most central agencies are involved."There are raids. Electoral bonds given and then they take their hands off. More than half of electoral bonds there is quid pro quo. This is one of the worst financial scams where 1000 crores are involved. There is money trail of around ₹8,000 crores which shows quid pro quo. IFB pro acknowledges that they were facing excise issues and then they were advised to purchase 40 Crore electoral bonds," he said..At this stage, Justice Pardiwala said the Court was not questioning the petitioners' motive but it cannot order a roving enquiry."But this will be far fetched roving enquiry. What will SIT to do on the basis of quid pro quo," the judge said.Bhushan cited more cases to argue there companies purchased the electoral bonds after facing action from central agencies. The Court, however, did not appear to be convinced."But we have to see what is the material on record. Who will say that it is quid pro quo," Justice Misra said.Adding to this, Justice Pardiwala said,"But the SIT is not the only answer. Then you pray for recovering the amount. This relief was declined in the main judgment."Bhushan responded that if there was quid pro quo then it becomes proceeds of crime and like theft, that material needs to be recovered."I am not saying do it right away. We are saying once investigation is complete then let that happen. No party can be allowed to sit on money which they received by kickback or bribes and thus they should return the fund," he said.On the fear of a roving inquiry, Bhushan said,"The option is to appoint a retired judge along with some retired CBI officers etc to look into this as a preliminary inquiry and then decide the course of the probe.".Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and advocate Pranav Sachdeva also made arguments for probe into the purchase of electoral bonds.