The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored investigation into the electoral bonds scheme while observing that it cannot order a roving inquiry.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said it would be “premature” and “inappropriate” to order a probe under a retired judge when the remedies available under the ordinary law governing criminal law procedure have not been invoked.
The top court said it cannot order a roving inquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds on the assumption of a quid pro quo for the award of a contract.
“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 available under the law,” the bench said.
Article 32 empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly to enforce their fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution.
The apex court also declined the prayer of the petitioners to direct the authorities to recover the donations received by political parties through electoral bonds and to reopen their income tax assessment.
The bench said these remedies pertain to authorities exercising statutory functions under the Income Tax Act.
“For the court to issue any such directions at this stage would amount to a conclusive opinion on disputed facts,” it said.
“The underlying premise of the submissions indicates that these are assumptions at the present stage and require the court to embark upon a roving enquiry into the purchase of the electoral bonds, the donations made to the political parties, and the arrangements in the nature of quid pro quo.
“We are of the considered view that the constitution of an SIT, headed by a former judge of this court or otherwise, should not be ordered on the face of remedies which are available under the law governing both criminal procedures,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing the pleas filed by NGOs -- Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), Dr Khem Singh Bhatti, Sudip Narayan Tamankar and Jai Prakash Sharma.
At the outset, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Common Cause and CPIL, argued that the disclosures which emerged after the apex court struck down the electoral bonds scheme reveal that there was “quid pro quo” between corporates, who purchased the bonds, and the political parties, who got the donations.
He submitted that this was an extraordinary case showing large-scale shady deals following the disclosures made in the top court’s order.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing in Bhatti, said the petitioner is seeking a direction to confiscate the money received by political parties through electoral bonds.
The senior lawyer said the top court’s judgment in the electoral bonds case clearly stated that a quid pro quo electoral bond donation would amount to bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The PIL of the two NGOs alleged an “apparent quid pro quo” between political parties, corporations, and investigative agencies under the garb of the scheme.
Terming the electoral bonds scheme as a “scam”, the plea sought a direction to the authorities to investigate the source of funding of “shell companies and loss-making companies which made donations to various political parties, as disclosed by the data released by the Election Commission (EC).
The petition also sought a direction to the authorities to recover the money donated by companies as part of “quid pro quo arrangements where these are found to be proceeds of crime”.
A five-judge Constitution bench scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government on February 15.
Following the top court’s judgement, the State Bank of India, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, shared the data with the EC, which later made it public.
The electoral bonds scheme, notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of the government’s efforts to bring transparency in political funding.
“The electoral bond scam has a money trail unlike the 2G scam or the coal scam, where allocations of spectrum and coal mining leases were arbitrarily made, but there was no evidence of a money trail. Yet this court ordered court-monitored investigations in both those cases, appointed special public prosecutors and formed special courts to deal with those cases,” the plea said.
It claimed several firms under investigation by government agencies donated large sums of money to the ruling party to potentially influence the outcome of probes.