Election bonds: premature, inapt to order roving inquiry, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a bunch of petitions seeking constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) headed by a former judge of it to probe alleged quid pro quo arrangements between political parties and those who had donated them funds through the now-scrapped electoral bonds.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud held that it would be "inappropriate" and "premature" to order a probe under a retired Judge since the allegations levelled by the petitioners are "assumptions" at the current stage.

The bench said it cannot embark upon a "roving inquiry" into the purchase of electoral bonds, especially since there are other remedies available under ordinary law governing criminal procedure.



Speaking for the bench, the CJI said a direction to reopen income tax assessments would amount to a conclusion on facts which would be inappropriate to make, bearing in mind these would be general and roving inquiries.

The Supreme court in February had struck down the electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional and violative of the "right to information of voters" due largely to their anonymity.

Also scrapped were amendments made to the Income Tax Act, the Representation of People Act and the Companies Act to usher in the 2018 scheme.

The top court had ordered State Bank of India to stop issuing such bonds immediately and provide complete details on those issued since 2019 to the Election Commission of India.

During the hearing on Friday, advocate Prashant Bhushan demanded constitution of an SIT to probe purchase of electoral bonds.

Bhushan argued that there could be a preliminary inquiry. He contended that the top court could appoint one of its former judges to monitor the investigation.


Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that income tax assessments have to be reopened because they were not contributions. Some political parties show that the entire money, which is undisclosed, goes into electoral bonds, he said.

Refusing to entertain the petitions, the top court said: "We decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court refuses to entertain a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation by an SIT into instances of apparent quid pro quo in the purchase of electoral bonds scheme."