look news india
The Supreme Court has rejected the demand for an SIT probe into the alleged collusion between political parties receiving donations through electoral bonds and the donor companies and corporate houses.
The case was heard on Friday by a bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra. In the petition of two NGOs Common Cause and Center for Public Interest Litigation, it was demanded that the system of taking donations and giving business under the election bond scheme should be investigated by SIT under the supervision of the court. Prashant Bhushan argued on behalf of the NGO. He said that in most of the cases, the people who received donations through electoral bonds have given some benefit to the organization or person who donated. Some people have been given contracts for some work. The amount donated by such people is only 1 percent of the contract amount received. Apart from political parties, there were also allegations of involvement of central investigating agencies in such cases. Prashant Bhushan had described such a system as one of the biggest economic and financial scams in the country. The court said that in such a case, when the investigation of the criminal case does not yield any result, Article 32 can be applied. Intervention under Article 32 at this stage is untimely and inappropriate.
Investigation cannot be ordered on the basis of transactions between companies and political parties: Court
The Supreme Court rejected the petition seeking an SIT probe into the bribery system in the electoral bond scheme. The court said that the court cannot order an inquiry on the basis that there was a transaction between the companies buying the bonds and the political parties. The court asked what can the SIT investigate in this? The CJI said that the court cannot order the formation of an SIT headed by a retired judge in matters of law governing criminal procedure. Re-investigation in tax assessment cases will have a major impact on the functioning of the authority. Making such allegations or interference under Article 32 of the Constitution would be hasty and excessive. However, the court itself canceled the electoral bond scheme in February and ordered SBI to stop the sale of electoral bonds. The apex court had also ordered SBI to disclose the details of all donors at that time.
What charges were leveled?
The petitioner alleged that donations were made to political parties by loss-making companies as well as shell companies. In return, benefits such as getting government work contracts, licences, avoiding CBI, IT and ED investigations and changing policies were received.
Data required for SIT investigation
Justice Mishra said that data is necessary for SIT investigation. Justice Pardiwala said that he feels that the formation of SIT cannot be a mere compromise. Petitioner's lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that if theft has taken place then the stolen goods should be seized so that the facts can be revealed.
