SC junks pleas for SIT probe into electoral bond scheme

New Delhi: 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 purchase of electoral bonds on the assumption of a quid pro quo for award of 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 a citizen to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of 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 the exercise of statutory functions by authorities 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 made indicate 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 which were 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.