Electoral bonds: SC turns down pleas for court-monitored SIT probe

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 2) turned down a batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored investigation into the electoral bonds scheme.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said it would be inappropriate and premature to intervene at this stage under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The top court said it cannot order a roving inquiry into purchase of electoral bonds on the assumption that it was quid pro quo for award of contracts.

"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.

Pleas filed by NGO

The top court was hearing pleas filed by NGOs including  the Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). 

The public interest litigation (PIL) cases filed by the two NGOs alleged an "apparent quid pro quo" between political parties, corporations, and investigative agencies under the garb of the scheme. 

However, the apex court said individual grievances – referring to discrete claims of quid pro quo deals between a political party and a corporate organisation – "will have to be pursued on basis of remedies available under the law". This should include options in case authorities decline to investigate specific claims, it said.

"At present, absent recourse to remedies available in law, it would be premature and inappropriate for this court (to interfere)... because intervention must proceed (after) failure of those remedies... at this stage the court cannot say if these normal remedies will not be efficacious," the court said.

Inquiry merited: Prashant Bhushan

Electoral bonds were scrapped by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling in February 2024. Just weeks before the Lok Sabha election started, the court said in its ruling that undisclosed funding to political parties violated voters' right to transparency.

It further directed the State Bank of India to release data identifying donors and the parties to whom donations were made.

Today, the court heard a batch of four petitions, including one that sought a court-monitored SIT probe. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan said a special inquiry was merited because "governments are involved... ruling party and top corporate houses are involved".

"There is a money trial of over ₹ 8,000 crore! In some cases, companies like IFB Agro paid ₹40 crore in bonds as it was facing issues in Tamil Nadu...this is not limited to one political party," he said. "No party should be allowed to sit on money received by way of kickbacks and bribes..."

But the court said the petitioner should "let the normal course (of events)" follow its February verdict.