The Supreme Court has rejected a series of petitions calling for a court-supervised Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the electoral bonds scheme. The petitioners had sought an inquiry into the transactions involving the sale and purchase of electoral bonds.

The electoral bonds scheme, introduced by the Narendra Modi government in 2018, was scrapped by the Supreme Court in February this year. The scheme had been promoted as an alternative to cash donations to political parties, aiming to increase transparency in political funding.

A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) claimed an "apparent quid pro quo" involving political parties, corporations, and investigative agencies.

The petition stated, "The electoral bond scam has a money trail unlike the 2G scam or the coal scam, where allocations of spectrum and coal mining leases were arbitrarily made, but there was no evidence of a money trail. Yet this court ordered court-monitored investigations in both those cases, appointed special public prosecutors and formed special courts to deal with those cases."

Dismissing the pleas, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, stated that it would be inappropriate and premature to intervene at this stage under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court stated that it could not order a broad inquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds based on the assumption that it was a quid pro quo for awarding contracts, as reported by news agency PTI.

“The petitions are founded on two assumptions that there was a quid pro quo in cases where there was 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 or independent,” the court was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying.

The Supreme Court said it has “highlighted underlying premise of submissions to indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and would require the court to enter into a roving inquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds, donations made to political parties and arrangements made in nature of quid pro quo.”

"The court entertained petitions challenging 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," the bench said.

"We decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution," the Bar and Bench reported while citing the court order.

Image source: Hindustan Times