Read Time: 04 minutes
Petitioner Sudip Narayan Tamankar, who identified himself as an activist, sought a court-monitored CBI investigation claiming that companies under regulatory scrutiny by agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Income Tax Department had made large contributions to ruling parties via electoral bonds. Additionally, firms awarded government contracts had also made substantial investments through these bonds.
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a public interest litigation noting that it lacked any concrete material to warrant a court-monitored investigation into alleged corruption and quid pro quo related to donations made through electoral bonds to political parties. The bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the petitioner for relying on media reports, inquiring about their reliability.
During the hearing, the court questioned the petitioner, “What is the material in this petition? On what basis? The newspaper reports, that's all”. Since there was no concrete material supporting the allegations, the court emphasized that a roving inquiry could not be initiated in the absence of substantial evidence.
“We proceed to give directions for investigation, preliminary inquiry, or lodging of a criminal complaint only when we are prima facie satisfied. There is no material except for a list of donors”, the court stated.
The CBI counsel argued that the allegations in the plea were vague and that the petitioner first needed to establish the maintainability of his petition. However, Tamankar contended that the electoral bond scheme facilitated an opaque system of political funding, enabling quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities and political parties.
The Supreme Court, in 2024, struck down the electoral bonds scheme, which the BJP-led government had introduced to allow anonymous political donations. Then-CJI DY Chandrachud opined that ordering a SIT "at the present stage, would be premature and inappropriate for this court, premature because the intervention of this court must be proceeded on failure of remedies under law, and inappropriate because the intervention at the present stage would postulate that the normal remedies available under law would not be efficacious".
For Petitioner: Advocate Pranav SachdevaCase Title: Sudip Narayan Tamankar v CBI [W.P.(C)-14089/2024][Inputs: ET Legal World]
Please Login or Register
