Supreme Court Says No To SIT Probe In Electoral Bonds Case

Dismissing the pleas that alleged a quid pro quo in the purchase of electoral bonds, the Supreme Court on Friday has rejected the demand to set up a court-monitored special investigation team (SIT) probe into the matter. The top court said it would be inappropriate and premature to intervene at this stage.

A three-judge bench presided by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that the petitioners should have sought other available remedies under the law before knocking on the top court’s doors. The bench also stated that the complaints are based on such assumptions which are likely to embark on roving enquiry.

Two non-governmental organisations (NGOs), namely Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), filed pleas before the apex court alleging a quid pro quo between political parties and corporations.

“The petitions are founded on two assumptions that there was a quid pro quo in cases where there was an award of contract or change in policy and that certain officials of the investigative agency were involved and thereby probe by the normal process of law will not be fair and independent,” the top court said as quoted by Bar and Bench.

SC said, “At the present stage, absent a recourse to the remedies which are available under the law to pursue such grievances, it would both be premature and inappropriate for this court; premature because the intervention of this court under Article 32 of the constitution must be preceded by the invocation of normal remedies under the law and contingent upon the failure of those remedies.”

Earlier this year, on 15 February 2024, the top court termed the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional. Then, the five-judge constitutional bench, while slashing the scheme, stated that it violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

While refusing to order a SIT probe in the matter, the top court stated, “The court entertained the petitions challenging the 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.”