New Delhi: On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain four Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe under a retired SC judge into alleged quid pro quo money trails and the awarding of contracts linked to significant political donations via electoral bonds.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, stated that the court could not order an inquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds based on the assumption of quid pro quo. Following a detailed hearing, the CJI dismissed the petitions filed by two NGOs, Common Cause and CPIL, along with Jai Prakash Sharma, Sudip Tamankar, and Dr. Khem Singh Bhati, which sought an SIT probe into several indications of donations to political parties through electoral bonds.
The Supreme Court clarified that petitioners could pursue appropriate remedial measures through the normal legal channels. The court advised that if their grievances are not investigated or if a closure report is filed, they may approach the High Courts or Supreme Court for further action.
The petitioners argued that the scheme of anonymous donations through electoral bonds, previously struck down by the SC, has significant implications for Indian democracy and politics. Despite the allegations, the court stated that ordinary criminal law remedies had not been invoked, and therefore, it could not pass any order regarding these PILs.
The petitioners sought relief in the form of a court-monitored SIT probe into the alleged quid pro quo disclosed by electoral bond data, an investigation into shell companies, recovery of amounts deemed proceeds of crime from political parties, and a directive concerning donations made by companies within three years of their incorporation.
Prashant Bhushan, representing the two NGO petitioners, described the electoral bonds scheme as a “scam” and called for a detailed investigation into the funding sources from “shell companies and loss-making companies” that donated to political parties.
Based on data from the Election Commission (EC), the petitioners suggested that the donations might represent an arranged exchange of services or favors between the involved parties.
In a landmark decision on February 15, the Supreme Court ruled that the electoral bonds scheme was unconstitutional and ordered banks to cease issuing bonds immediately. The court found that the Union had failed to demonstrate that the measure adopted in clause 7(4)(1) of the electoral scheme was the least restrictive measure.
The five-judge bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, also declared amendments to the Income Tax Act and Section 29-C of the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act as ultra vires. Additionally, the amendment to the Companies Act allowing blanket corporate political funding was deemed unconstitutional.
The verdict directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop issuing electoral bonds immediately and submit all details to the Election Commission by March 6. The EC was instructed to make all donations public within one week of receiving the information. Furthermore, all electoral bonds within the 15-day validity period were to be returned by political parties to the purchasers.
The bench emphasized that a lack of privacy in political affiliation could have catastrophic consequences, including voter disenfranchisement. The right to informational privacy, they noted, extends to financial contributions to political parties.
The electoral bonds scheme was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Congress leader Jaya Thakur, Spandan Biswal, and others. The apex court had reserved the case in November 2023.
