The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 2) dismissed petitions requesting the formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to examine alleged quid pro quo in the electoral bond purchases. The court observed that the complaints were based on assumptions that would require it to “embark on a roving inquiry”, The Indian Express reported.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted that the petitioners had not exhausted all available legal remedies before seeking intervention from the Supreme Court. As a result, the court deemed it "premature and inappropriate" to intervene at this point.
The apex court said, “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,” reported the newspaper.
“Individual grievances of this nature in regard to the presence or absence of quid pro quo would have to be pursued on the basis of the remedies available under the law. Likewise, where there is a refusal to investigate or a closure report has been filed, recourse can be taken to appropriate remedies under the law governing criminal procedure or as the case may be under Article 226 of the constitution,” the bench added.
Regarding the nature of the petitions, the court observed that the petitions “are founded on two assumptions that there would be prima facie an element of quid pro quo where the date of purchase of the electoral bonds and the donation to a political party is in proximity to the award of a contract or change in policy; and that there is an involvement of certain officials of the investigative agencies, as a consequence of which an investigation by the normal process of the law would not be fair or independent.”
The court observed that based on the petitioners' "assumptions," it would be required to undertake a broad and exploratory investigation into the purchase of electoral bonds and the potential for "quid pro quo."
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted that the petitioners had not exhausted all available legal remedies before seeking intervention from the Supreme Court. As a result, the court deemed it "premature and inappropriate" to intervene at this point.
The apex court said, “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,” reported the newspaper.
“Individual grievances of this nature in regard to the presence or absence of quid pro quo would have to be pursued on the basis of the remedies available under the law. Likewise, where there is a refusal to investigate or a closure report has been filed, recourse can be taken to appropriate remedies under the law governing criminal procedure or as the case may be under Article 226 of the constitution,” the bench added.
Regarding the nature of the petitions, the court observed that the petitions “are founded on two assumptions that there would be prima facie an element of quid pro quo where the date of purchase of the electoral bonds and the donation to a political party is in proximity to the award of a contract or change in policy; and that there is an involvement of certain officials of the investigative agencies, as a consequence of which an investigation by the normal process of the law would not be fair or independent.”
The court observed that based on the petitioners' "assumptions," it would be required to undertake a broad and exploratory investigation into the purchase of electoral bonds and the potential for "quid pro quo."
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment