The Supreme Court has rejected the petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged allegations of collusion between political parties receiving donations through electoral bonds and corporate houses making the donations.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra heard the matter today. The petition of two NGOs, Common Cause and Center for Public Interest Litigation, demanded the formation of a special investigation team to investigate the alleged take and give donation system under the electoral bond scheme under judicial supervision.
What did CJI DY Chandrachud say?
The Chief Justice said that we were also asked to form an SIT to investigate against companies and political parties, seize the money obtained illegally, impose fines on companies, investigate under the supervision of the court and ask the Income Tax Department to re-assess the political parties since 2018.
There was uproar due to the death of 13 children in Delhi government’s shelter home, Minister Atishi ordered an inquiry
CJI said that the lawyers told that the electoral bond data made public after our last order has revealed that companies have donated money to political parties to get benefits from the government. They say that it is necessary to form an SIT because government agencies will not do anything. According to them, in many cases, some officials of the agencies themselves are involved in pressurizing for donations.
Court cannot directly initiate investigation- CJI
The Chief Justice said that the purchase of electoral bonds was done under a law made by the Parliament. Political parties received donations on the basis of that law. This law has now been repealed. Now we have to decide whether there is a need to investigate the donations given under it. These petitions have been filed on the assumption that donations were given to political parties to earn profit so that they can get government contracts or change government policy according to their wishes. The petitioners also believe that government agencies will not be able to investigate.
He further said that we told the petitioner that all this is your perception. Right now it does not seem that the court will directly start the investigation. In those cases where someone has doubts, he can take the legal route. If there is no solution, he can go to court. There are many ways in the law regarding investigation. In the current situation, it would be hasty to get the investigation done by the Supreme Court. The petitioner should look for other legal options.
CJI said that it is not right to file a petition directly in the Supreme Court when legal options are available. We do not think it is necessary to confiscate the donation amount from political parties or ask for reassessment of income tax. There is no need to form an SIT under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge. In cases where the agency does not investigate or stops the investigation, the complainant can go to the High Court against it.
Let us tell you that in February this year, the Supreme Court had canceled the electoral bond scheme allowing anonymous funding to political parties and ordered the State Bank of India to immediately stop issuing electoral bonds. Along with this, the court also ordered SBI to make public the details of all donors.
The petitions claimed that the data of electoral bonds issued by SBI showed that most of these were donated by corporate houses to political parties as a take and take arrangement. The petition also alleged that these agreements may have been made to avoid action by central agencies including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Income Tax Department or for financial gain. Therefore, these should be investigated by the SIT under judicial supervision.