SC rejects plea over probe on electoral bonds

The court highlighted that it cannot assume a quid pro quo in the purchase of electoral bonds to justify awarding contracts. The court emphasised that cases involving criminal wrongdoing should not be addressed under Article 32, which allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcing their fundamental rights, when other legal remedies are available.

Additionally, the bench denied the petitioners' request to direct authorities to recover donations received by political parties through electoral bonds and to reopen their income-tax assessments. It noted that such actions pertain to statutory functions under the Income-Tax Act.

The court stated, "Issuing any such directions at this stage would amount to a conclusive opinion on disputed facts. The underlying premise of the submissions made indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and require the court to embark upon a roving inquiry into the purchase of the electoral bonds, the donations made to the political parties, and the arrangements in the nature of quid pro quo. 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 available under the law governing criminal procedures."

The Supreme Court was hearing pleas filed by NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, along with individuals Dr Khem Singh Bhatti, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, and Jai Prakash Sharma. Previously, a five-judge Constitution bench had scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government on February 15.