SIT probe into electoral bonds: Supreme Court says it would be ‘premature’, ‘inappropriate’ to intervene under Article 32

Supreme Court deems premature and inappropriate to order SIT probe into electoral bonds data, suggests pursuing existing legal remedies.

The Supreme Court on August 2 found it both “premature” and “inappropriate” to constitute a Special Investigation Team to conduct an apex court-monitored probe into allegations of quid pro quo among political parties, loss making companies, public servants and even some officers of investigating agencies revealed in the electoral bonds data.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud said it was “premature” for the apex court to pass such an order in writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution when there was already recourse for same reliefs in the laws of criminal procedure.

Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that Article 32 should be preceded only after normal remedies under the criminal procedure have failed to produce results.

Electoral bonds, the State Bank and the art of evasion

The court said it would be inappropriate to order a monitored probe now as it would postulate that the normal criminal remedies were not efficacious.

Petitioners, including Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation, had argued that lucrative contracts, policy changes and various “omissions and commissions” involving political parties in power and influential individuals and companies coincided with their purchase of electoral bonds.

The petitioners argued that a normal investigation would not produce as some officers in the law enforcement agencies were themselves involved in the quid pro quo.