Supreme Court Rejects SIT Probe into Electoral Bonds Claims

On Friday, the Supreme Court denied a series of petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties via Electoral Bonds donations. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra stated that forming an SIT headed by a […]

by Swimmi Srivastava - August 2, 2024, 4:02 pm

On Friday, the Supreme Court denied a series of petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties via Electoral Bonds donations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra stated that forming an SIT headed by a former judge of this court is premature, as normal legal remedies have not yet been exhausted. The bench emphasized that Article 32 intervention must follow the pursuit of available legal remedies and should not replace them.

The court also dismissed requests to direct authorities to recover Electoral Bonds donations from political parties or to reopen their income tax assessments, deeming such actions premature without a factual conclusion.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, argued that there was a quid pro quo between corporates who bought bonds and the political parties that received the funds. However, the bench questioned why normal legal processes, such as lodging FIRs or filing private complaints, had not been pursued for these claims.

The petitions, filed by NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), sought investigations into the funding sources of shell and loss-making companies contributing to political parties, claiming this was evidence of illicit quid pro quo arrangements. They argued that a comprehensive investigation under Supreme Court supervision was necessary to uncover the alleged scam involving significant sums.

The petitioners argued that the Electoral Bonds scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties, involved complex conspiracies among company officials, government officials, and political parties, requiring thorough investigation by agencies like the ED, IT, and CBI.

In February, the Supreme Court had ruled against the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which had enabled anonymous political funding. The court ordered the State Bank of India to halt the issuance of Electoral Bonds and invalidated amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act that facilitated anonymous donations.