New Delhi

India's top court on Friday (Aug 2) rejected petitions seeking a detailed investigation under judicial supervision into an alleged scam of using electoral bonds (EBs). The political funding tool was introduced in 2017 but was scrapped in February by the Supreme Court of India as it was declared "unconstitutional". 

Advertisment

“Individual grievances regarding presence of quid pro quo would have to be pursued on the basis of remedies available under the law. Where there is a refusal to investigate or closure report has been filed, appropriate remedies can be taken under law governing criminal procedure or as the case may be under Article 226,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

Also read: India: NEET-UG 2024 paper leak was limited to Patna and Hazaribagh, rules Supreme Court

Two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had earlier filed public interest litigation (PIL) that alleged an “apparent quid pro quo” between political parties, corporations, and investigative agencies. The petition also asked for recovering the money paid by companies as part of “quid pro quo arrangements where these are found to be proceeds of crime”.

Advertisment

Watch: India: Supreme Court upholds NEET-UG 2024 amid paper leak concerns

×

The scheme was designed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration to "introduce transparency" into political funding in the country but it was criticised for concerns over lack of transparency and accountability.

Advertisment

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in February, said that the anonymous electoral bonds scheme is “violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).”

Today, the court said it will not entertain pleas regarding electoral bonds under Article 32 when other laws can be used to seek remedy for the same.

"The court entertained petitions challenging electoral bonds since there was an aspect of judicial review. But the cases involving criminal wrongdoing should not be under Article 32 when there are remedies available under the law," the bench of the Supreme Court said.

(With inputs from agencies)