Supreme Court
On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected petitions asking for a court-supervised Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, led by a retired Justice, into the sale of electoral bonds, which are now banned. The petitions alleged improper exchanges between political parties and corporate donors.
The court stated that individual grievances, concerning claims of such exchanges, must be addressed through legal remedies. If authorities refuse to investigate specific claims, these remedies remain available. The court felt it was premature to intervene at this stage, emphasizing that remedies should be exhausted first.
Electoral bonds were banned in February, and prior to the Lok Sabha election, the court ruled that the secret funding to political parties breached voters’ right to transparency.
On Friday, four new petitions, including one for a court-monitored SIT probe, were presented. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that a special inquiry was needed due to the involvement of governments and major corporations. He claimed that over ₹8,000 crore was involved and cited instances where companies like IFB Agro paid ₹40 crore in bonds under pressure.
Bhushan described this as a significant corruption case and argued that without oversight from a retired Supreme Court Justice, the investigation would be ineffective. He stressed that no political party should benefit from money received as kickbacks.
Also read: Supreme Court: No systemic Breach Of NEET-UG 2024 Exam Except At Hazaribagh & Patna
The court, however, seemed unconvinced and suggested that the petitioners should let the normal legal processes follow their course. It questioned what additional investigation an SIT could achieve beyond the court’s previous rulings, which included ordering the State Bank of India to release donor data.
Bhushan argued that an SIT was necessary to investigate the claims of quid pro quo and mentioned media reports linking donations to specific corporate favors. He referenced the coal mining block scandal, where the court had previously ordered inquiries based on evidence of arbitrary actions.
Despite these points, the court remained doubtful, questioning the effectiveness of a SIT without concrete evidence of wrongdoing. It noted that there must be specific data for an SIT to investigate and concluded that establishing a SIT was not the appropriate solution.
