The Delhi High Court criticized a PIL demanding a CBI probe into alleged corruption linked to electoral bond donations, calling it speculative and lacking solid evidence. The case is set for further hearing on March 28.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed a negative view on a public interest litigation (PIL) that asked for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into corruption linked to donations received by political parties through electoral bonds.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the petition did not contain any solid proof but was based on data available on the Election Commission’s website and media reports.
“You have made no allegation in your petition. The petition is based on information put up on Election Commission of India portal and some co-relation from media. What you want is CBI should investigate. You want a roving enquiry to seek out information. Can this be done?”
-the Court asked.
The Court also criticized the growing trend of filing PILs that demand CBI investigations based only on newspaper reports.
“I don’t know how far newspapers can be relied on. This is speculative. There is no material except that there is a list of donors and amount is donated, that’s all,”
-the Bench remarked.
The matter was postponed for further hearing on March 28.
The Court asked the petitioner to provide strong evidence for consideration.
“This is a PIL. There is a tendency these days to rush to the court that some scam has happened, so SIT be constituted CBI, Police investigation be ordered. That is not the jurisdiction of PIL. You have to bring some material on record. Only then we can consider,”
-the Bench said.
After the Supreme Court had canceled the electoral bonds scheme earlier this year, the petitioner, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, lodged a complaint with the CBI in April 2024, citing publicly available information about corruption related to the scheme.
However, the petition mentioned that CBI had taken no action to investigate corruption or bribery behind the donations made by companies.
A similar petition was previously filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, but it was dismissed with a condition that a fresh petition could be filed only if there was “a refusal to investigate or a closure report has been filed.”
“After the disclosure of the electoral bond information, it came to light that various donations would need thorough investigation as the same prima facie indicate corruption and bribery and other offences,”
-the petition stated.
The petitioner argued that as per available data, several companies under scrutiny by agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Income Tax (IT) Department had made large donations to the ruling parties through electoral bonds.
The petition further claimed that there was evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement between political parties, corporations, government officials, and regulatory bodies.
“It was revealed that contracts were being awarded to people in huge proximity. Companies under investigation benefited from donating to political parties. We sought SIT investigation at Supreme Court. Supreme Court did not allow SIT to be constituted, but we were given the liberty to approach the agencies and to approach court if needed,”
-petitioner’s counsel Pranav Sachdeva told the Court.
However, the counsel representing CBI opposed the petition.
“In many cases CBI is already investigating. He is doubting on ED, CBI and Income Tax department also? His plea is vague. He has to satisfy court that the petition is maintainable,”
-the CBI counsel said.
The Court also questioned why the petitioner was specifically insisting on a CBI probe.
“What is this argument that only CBI will investigate? So some cognisable offence takes place is central government office, is it not open to the person affected to file complaint to local police?”
-Justice Upadhyaya said.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s request to issue notice, stating that allegations based only on newspaper reports are not reliable.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 28, where the petitioner must present additional proof to support his claim.
CASE TITLE:
Sudip Narayan Tamankar v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
