'All Speculation, No Concrete Material': Delhi High Court On PIL For CBI Probe Into Corruption Via Electoral Bonds

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the allegations raised in the PIL seeking a court monitored CBI probe into the instances of “quid pro quo and corruption” by way of donations made through electoral bonds by individuals or companies to various political parties were “all speculation” and were based on “no concrete material”.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the allegations were based on two things- information uploaded on the website of the Election Commission of India and newspaper reports.

“In this petition, what is the material? Only two. Number one, the information put up by State Bank of India on the Election Commission of India website, about who purchased the bonds, and what was the amount. Now that information is suggested to be attached in certain transaction which took place between the government and certain companies. On what basis? The newspaper reports, that's all. I don't know how far can they (newspaper reports) be reliable. And this is all speculation. There is no concrete material to suggest this,” CJ remarked.

The remarks were made to the counsel appearing for the petitioner Sudip Narayan Tamankar who claims to be an activist espousing causes of public interest.

The petitioner's counsel took the Court through the contents of the petition and submitted that an email was received by him stating that his complaint made to the CBI has been closed on six counts. As per the counsel, the reasons were that the allegations raised in the complaint were generic in nature, no specific role of political parties were mentioned and no one was specifically identified as a suspect.

To this, the CJ orally said: “You have made a complaint which is based on the information put up on the Election Commission of India's portal, and some correlation done by the newspapers as to who paid the amount, who purchased the bonds in relation to some kind of quid pro quo. It is all based on the newspapers. What you want is that CBI should investigate into this. If you are able to show on your own that there has been some cognizable offense, then you can yourself lodge the FIR. But you yourself do not know as to what exactly happened. The only information available in public domain is who purchase the bonds. That's all. Therefore you're seeking a kind of direction for conducting a roving inquiry, then fish out material and then pass order for conducting investigation and lodging FIR etc. Is it permissible?”

The Bench also rejected the petitioner's submission that as per the CBI manual, if there are allegations against Central Government, the matter directly goes under the CBI and will not go to the local police.

“If in the Central Government office some cognizable offence takes place, in which the central government official is involved, then an FIR can't be lodged? What is this argument that only the CBI will investigate,” CJ remarked.

At this juncture, the counsel for CBI submitted that the allegations in the plea were vague and were made against many authorities including against the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax department. The counsel said that before the matter can proceed further, the petitioner has to first establish as to how the plea is maintainable.

The CJ then told the petitioner's counsel that there is a tendency these days that PILs are being filed on the basis of whatever comes to someone's notice, which is not the jurisdiction of PIL.

“This is a PIL. There is a tendency these days. Something comes to your notice. You rush to the court. That this is what has happened, scam. This scam has happened. Therefore an SIT be constituted, CBI investigation be ordered, police investigation be ordered, retired judge be ordered and then once on that inquiry, if something is found, then they should be directed to criminally proceed against the responsible officers. That's not the jurisdiction of PIL. You have to bring to the notice of the court, you have to bring on record certain material on the basis of which we will be able to form a prima facie opinion, and then only we will be passing an order,” he said.

“We proceed to give them direction for investigation, preliminary inquiry, lodging of criminal complaint, etc, a prosecution only once we are prima facie satisfied. There is no material except that there is a list of donors, that's all…And you are asking us to pass an order requiring them to conduct an inquiry so that material can surface, and on that basis, we may pass an order for prosecution,” CJ added.

The matter will now be heard on May 28.

As per Tamankar, the electoral bond scheme created an “opaque electoral funding veil” for quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities and the political parties.

It is his case that after the disclosure of the electoral bond information pursuant to Supreme Court ruling, it came to light that various donations would need thorough investigation as the same indicate “corruption and bribery.”

The plea says that Tamankar collated publicly available information and filed a detailed complaint to the CBI on April 18 seeking an investigation into the alleged corruption disclosed in the electoral bond data.

However, it is his case, that no action has been taken by the CBI into his complaint and that the probe agency has not even acknowledged that the complaint was received.

“The evidence indicates quid pro quo arrangements among political entities, corporations, Government officials investigative and regulatory bodies. Information shows significant sums moving from corporate entities to political parties. These exchanges are presented either as "protection money" to evade Government oversight, as "bribes" to gain contracts or competitive advantages in the relevant market through statutory amendments,” the plea says.

It adds that companies under regulatory scrutiny from agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or Income Tax (IT) Department have made substantial contributions to ruling parties through electoral bonds.

“Electoral bonds worth Rs. 581 crores have been purchased by several loss making companies, of which 434 crores given to ruling party at the Centre. The Income Tax Department, CBI and Enforcement Directorate have not taken any legal action against them. The share capital of some companies were from Rs.1 to 5 lakhs but bonds purchased are worth Rs. 5 crores,” the plea said.

“It is submitted that despite the completion of 3 months from the date of the cited order, there has been no action or update on the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The investigation is being sought due to a range of quid pro quo transactions between political parties, government servants and Corporates,” it reads.

Title: SUDIP NARAYAN TAMANKAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR