2024 (8) TMI 841 - SCH - Indian Laws

Constitutionality of Electoral Bond Scheme and provisions in cognate legislation including those Representation of the People Act 1951, the Companies Act 2017 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 - invocation of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - At the present stage, absent a recourse to the remedies which are available under the law to pursue such grievances, it would both be premature and inappropriate for this Court; premature because the intervention of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution must be preceded by the invocation of normal remedies under the law and contingent upon the failure of those remedies; and inappropriate because the intervention of this Court, at the present stage, would postulate that the normal remedies which are available under the law would not be efficacious. This Court entertained a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of statutory provisions embodying the Electoral Bond Scheme and the consequential amendments which were made to diverse statutes. The only remedy for challenging such legislative changes lies in the invocation of the power of judicial review. Allegations involving criminal wrong doing, on the other hand, are of a distinct nature where recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution should not be taken as a matter of course particularly, in view of the remedies available in law. The constitution of an SIT headed by a former Judge of this Court or otherwise should not be ordered in the face of remedies which are available under the law governing the criminal procedure. Likewise, matters, such as the reopening of assessments pertain to the specific statutory jurisdiction conferred upon assessing authorities under the Income Tax Act 1961 and other statutes. The jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is declined to be exercised - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitutionality of Electoral Bond Scheme and related provisions.
2. Request for investigation into quid pro quo arrangements and misuse of Electoral Bond Scheme.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
4. Establishment of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) for court-monitored investigation.
5. Petitions seeking various reliefs related to electoral bonds and political funding.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court, in a previous judgment, declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and related provisions as unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, directions were issued to stop the issuance of Electoral Bonds and disclose details of purchases and contributions to political parties.

2. Several petitions were filed seeking investigations into quid pro quo arrangements, misuse of the scheme, and recovery of funds from political parties. The Court considered the need for a court-monitored investigation by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) based on allegations of criminality and involvement of investigative agency officials.

3. The Court evaluated the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to entertain the petitions. It noted that the donations were made based on a law that was later deemed unconstitutional. The primary issue was whether the underlying reasons for donations should be probed through a court-monitored investigation.

4. The petitions assumed quid pro quo relationships and involvement of investigative agency officials, necessitating an independent investigation. However, the Court emphasized that such assumptions required a detailed inquiry and normal legal remedies should be exhausted before invoking Article 32 jurisdiction.

5. The Court declined to order the constitution of an SIT or grant other reliefs sought in the petitions, citing the availability of remedies under criminal procedure laws and specific statutory functions of authorities. It emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 32 should not be invoked as a matter of course for allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions and disposed of pending applications, concluding that the constitution of an SIT or other reliefs sought were not warranted under the circumstances. The decision was based on the availability of legal remedies and the specific statutory functions of relevant authorities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's considerations regarding the Electoral Bond Scheme, requests for investigations, jurisdiction under Article 32, and the decision to decline the establishment of an SIT or other reliefs sought in the petitions.