Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas For SIT Investigation Into Electoral Bonds 'Quid Pro Quo', Says Ordinary Remedies Not Invoked

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 2) dismissed petitions seeking to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged instances of quid pro quo arrangements between corporate and political parties through Electoral Bonds donations.The Court said that it would be "premature" and "inappropriate" to order an investigation under the monitoring of a retired judge when the remedies available under the ordinary law governing criminal law procedure have not been invoked.The Court also turned down the pleas to direct the authorities to recover the donations received by political parties through electoral bonds and to re-open their income tax assessments. The Court said that 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.The Court said that the underlying premises of the petitions are "assumptions at the present stage."The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dealt with four petitions, one filed jointly by NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), three others by Dr.Khem Singh Bhatti, Sudip Narayan Tamankar and Jai Prakash Sharma.The bench observed in the order as follows :"The purchase of electoral bonds and the donations made to the political parties were on the basis of a law enacted by the Parliament. The provisions of the statute have since been held to be unconstitutional. The issue to be decided is whether the underlying reasons for the donations to political parties should be subjected to a Court-monitored investigation under an SIT.The petitions are founded on two assumptions : (1) There would be prima facie an element of quid pro quo where the date of the purchase of electoral bonds was in proximity to the award of a contract or a change in policy. (2) There is an involvement of certain officials of the investigating agencies as a consequence of which an investigation by a normal process of law would not be fair or independent. We have highlighted the underlying premise of the submission to 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. The submissions which are urged on behalf of the petitioners highlight that even according to them an element of criminality may be involved where there is a proximate relationship between the purchase and contribution of the bond and the award of contract, or commission or omission by the authorities, as the case may be.Individual grievances of this nature with regard to the presence or absence of a quid pro quo would have to be pursued on the basis of the remedies available under the law. Likewise, where there is a refusal to investigate or a closure report has been filed, recourse can be taken to appropriate remedies under the law governing the criminal procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution.At the present stage, absent a recourse to remedies which are available under the law to pursue such grievances, it would be both premature - because the intervention under Article 32 must be preceded by the invocation of the normal remedies under the law and contingent upon the failure of those remedies - and inappropriate -because the intervention by this Court at the present stage would postulate that the normal remedies which are available under the law are not efficacious- for this Court to issue such directions.The other remedies including the directions sought to make recovery from political parties on the basis they are proceeds of crime or for reopening of income tax assessments hinge upon the statutory functions of authorities constituted under the law. For the above reasons, 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.Likewise, reliefs such as the reopening of assessments pertain to specific statutory jurisdictions conferred upon authorities under the Income Tax Act and other statutory enactments. Issuing a direction of that nature at the present stage would amount to a conclusion on facts which would be inappropriate.."Arguments Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Common Cause and CPIL submitted that the disclosures which emerged after the Court struck down the electoral bonds made it clear that there was a 'quid pro quo' between many corporates, who purchased the bonds, and the political parties, who received the donations.CJI DY Chandrachud asked Bhushan why can't the normal process of law (lodging of FIR or filing a private complaint before the concerned court as per the Prevention of Corruption Act) be invoked in...

Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas For SIT Investigation Into Electoral Bonds 'Quid Pro Quo', Says Ordinary Remedies Not Invoked

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags