The Delhi High Court on Wednesday called for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to clarify its stance regarding a plea for a court-monitored investigation into alleged corruption and quid pro quo arrangements in political donations through electoral bonds.
Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela raised concerns over the nature of the inquiry proposed by the petition, emphasizing that the current allegations seemed to constitute a “roving and fishing inquiry” without substantial backing. “This appears to be a roving and fishing inquiry… This does not seem bona fide,” remarked the bench during the session.
The petition, lodged by activist Sudip Narayan Tamankar, alleges that the electoral bond scheme, which was recently invalidated by the Supreme Court, facilitated opaque funding and potential reciprocal benefits between corporate donors and political parties. Tamankar’s request for the CBI to file an affidavit was, however, denied by the court, which has postponed the hearing to January 2025.
The CBI counsel objected to the maintainability of the petition, prompting the court to advise that the agency should decide how to handle the complaint internally. “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 court explained.
This legal scrutiny follows a landmark decision by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on February 15, which scrapped the electoral bonds scheme introduced by the BJP government in 2018. The scheme was initially touted as a measure to increase transparency in political funding by replacing cash donations with bond transactions. However, it has faced significant criticism and legal challenges, culminating in the Supreme Court’s ruling to discontinue it due to concerns over anonymity and lack of transparency.
The plea by Tamankar previously reached the Supreme Court, which on August 2 rejected similar calls for a court-monitored investigation into the scheme, citing the prematurity and inappropriateness of such an inquiry when existing legal remedies had not been exhausted. The apex court had emphasized that it would not endorse a broad, exploratory investigation based merely on assumptions of misconduct.
