The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed four public-interest petitions that sought a court-monitored special investigation team probe into the alleged use of electoral bonds as a quid pro quo between governments and corporate groups.

The court said it could not order a “roving enquiry” based on mere assumptions by the petitioners, particularly since there were other avenues to seek remedy and the donations had been part of a statutory enactment by Parliament.

The petitioners had alleged that companies had bought (the now abolished) electoral bonds to wangle lucrative government contracts, or as “protection money” to avoid or stall action against them by the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and the income-
tax department.

After hearing the petitioners, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan and others, a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said they had alternative remedies under the criminal law or provisions like the Income Tax Act.

“The underlying premise of the submissions made indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and required the court to embark on a roving enquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds, the donations which were made to the political parties and the arrangements made in the nature of quid pro quo,” the bench said.

“We are of the considered view that the constitution of an SIT headed by a former judge of this court or otherwise should not be ordered in the wake of remedies which are available under the law.”

The pleas had been moved by the NGO Common Cause besides individual petitioners Sudip Tamankar, Khem Singh Bhatti and Jai Prakash Sharma.

Common Cause, the main petitioner, had contended: “The electoral bond data that has been revealed shows that the bulk of the bonds appear to have been given as quid pro quo arrangements by corporates to political parties for… getting contracts/ licences/ leases/ clearances/ approvals worth thousands and sometimes lakhs of crores and other benefits from the governments or authorities controlled by the governments which were in turn controlled by the political parties that received those bonds.

“Electoral bonds given in close proximity to action by agencies like the ED/ IT/ CBI raising suspicion of it being ‘protection’ money to avoid/ stall action by or in exchange for regulatory inaction by various regulators like the drug controller etc and electoral bonds given as a consideration for favourable policy changes.”

According to the NGO, the purchase of bonds amounting to several thousand crores appeared to have influenced contracts worth lakhs of crores and regulatory inaction by agencies that allowed substandard or dangerous drugs to be sold in the market, endangering lives.

It said many of the donations appeared to have been made in violation of the regulatory framework governing contributions by companies to political parties.

Common Cause cited Section 182(1) of the Companies Act that prohibits any government company, or any company less than three years old, from donating to political parties.

Yet the data disclosed on electoral bonds show that at least 20 companies bought the bonds within three years — in some instances, within months — of their incorporation, the NGO argued. It said that donations by these companies totalled more than ₹100 crore.

A five-judge constitution bench had on February 15 quashed the electoral bonds scheme, introduced by the Centre in 2018, as illegal and unconstitutional. The scheme allowed anonymous donations to political parties.

The constitution bench ruled that the scheme violated people’s right to know who was donating how much to political parties; and that it could lead to quid pro quo between companies and governments headed by recipient political parties.