The Delhi High Court evaluated the viability of a petition for a court-monitored CBI investigation into alleged corruption linked to electoral bond donations. The bench exhibited doubts about the petition’s integrity, describing it as lacking concrete evidence and being a “roving inquiry.” A hearing is set for January 2025, following the Supreme Court’s earlier rejection of similar requests.
New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court scrutinized the maintainability of a petition seeking a court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged quid pro quo and corruption involving donations made through electoral bonds to various political parties. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, expressed skepticism about the petition’s intent, stating, “This appears to be a roving and fishing inquiry.”
The court emphasized that the petition seemed to lack bona fides and was based on assumptions. Addressing the petitioner’s counsel, the bench remarked,
“You are building edifice on quid pro quo. This appears to be a roving and fishing inquiry… This is seeming to be a petition that is without any material. This does not seem bona fide.“
The CBI’s counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition’s maintainability. In response, the court clarified that it was not examining the allegations at this stage and directed the CBI counsel to seek instructions. The bench noted,
“The scope of the petition is limited. Complaint is made. Reject it if you want. Take instructions. We are not telling you how you deal with a complaint.”
The petitioner, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, an activist advocating for public interest, filed the plea seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into his April 18, 2024, complaint. He alleged that the electoral bond scheme created an opaque veil for quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities and political parties. Tamankar’s counsel argued that a case for ordering a probe was substantiated by disclosures following the Supreme Court’s judgment scrapping the electoral bonds scheme. He urged the court to direct the CBI to file an affidavit.
However, the bench refused this plea and scheduled the next hearing for January 2025. The court’s skepticism was further underscored by its observation that the petition appeared to be pushing for a “roving and fishing inquiry,” indicating a lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations.
This development follows the Supreme Court’s February 15 decision to scrap the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government. The scheme, notified on January 2, 2018, was initially pitched as an alternative to cash donations to political parties, aiming to bring transparency to political funding.
Tamankar had previously approached the Supreme Court with a similar plea. On August 2, the apex court rejected the batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored investigation into the electoral bonds scheme, observing that it couldn’t order a roving inquiry.
The Supreme Court stated it would be “premature” and “inappropriate” to order a probe under a retired judge when remedies available under ordinary criminal law procedures had not been invoked.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
