On Friday, the Supreme Court of India declined a series of petitions demanding an investigation into alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties through Electoral Bonds. The court's decision came from a bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The petitions had sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a former judge to examine claims that Electoral Bonds facilitated corrupt transactions between businesses and political entities. The bench ruled against these demands, arguing that the court should not intervene without first exhausting available legal remedies.
According to the court, invoking Article 32 of the Constitution— which allows citizens to seek the court's intervention when fundamental rights are at stake—should come after attempting other legal remedies. The court emphasised that the petitioners should first use standard legal processes such as filing complaints or lodging FIRs before seeking extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court.
The petitioners, including NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), had also requested the court to direct authorities to recover funds received by political parties through Electoral Bonds.
They claimed that these donations might be linked to corrupt practices and sought a reopening of income tax assessments related to these transactions. The court, however, rejected these requests, noting that making such determinations at this stage would be premature and potentially inappropriate.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, argued that there was a significant quid pro quo arrangement between corporations and political parties.
He claimed that corporations used Electoral Bonds to gain favour or secure contracts, while political parties received substantial funds in return. Despite this argument, the bench was hesitant to bypass standard legal procedures for a more immediate judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court's refusal to form an SIT or direct the recovery of funds marks a setback for those seeking a thorough investigation into the Electoral Bonds scheme.
The petitioners had argued that the scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties, was rife with potential abuses and that a comprehensive probe was necessary to uncover any wrongdoing.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme, which had permitted anonymous donations to political parties. The court ruled that the scheme, along with related amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act, was unconstitutional. The court had ordered the State Bank of India to cease issuing Electoral Bonds and had demanded transparency in political funding.
The Supreme Court's latest decision underscores its stance that, before extraordinary measures like an SIT probe are considered, all conventional legal avenues must be pursued.
As the legal process continues, those concerned about the integrity of political donations will have to rely on standard legal mechanisms to address their grievances.
Follow us
