Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, on October 9, 2023, questioned the maintainability of a petition seeking a court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged instances of quid pro quo and corruption through donations made via electoral bonds to political parties. The petition, filed by activist Sudip Narayan Tamankar, argued that the donations facilitated by the electoral bond scheme were indicative of corrupt practices, bribery, and quid pro quo arrangements. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed concerns over the validity of the petition, especially considering that the donations were made in compliance with an Act of Parliament. The Court also referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling on a similar petition, which dismissed the plea, advising the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies. Tamankar’s plea was based on allegations of corporate entities making substantial donations to political parties, allegedly evading regulatory oversight in return for favorable treatment. The High Court, however, emphasized that a CBI probe could not be ordered on assumptions and asked the petitioner’s counsel to file a note addressing the maintainability of the petition before proceeding further.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
Sudip Narayan Tamankar, the petitioner, described himself as a public interest activist who sought to expose corruption and other malpractices in India’s electoral system. His primary contention revolved around the misuse of the electoral bond scheme, which he claimed had created an opaque system of political donations. According to Tamankar, this scheme facilitated quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities, political parties, and government officials, allowing companies to contribute large sums to political parties in return for regulatory leniency, government contracts, or statutory advantages.
Tamankar argued that after the Supreme Court ordered the disclosure of certain electoral bond data, it became apparent that various corporate donations were made by entities under investigation by agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Income Tax (IT) Department. These corporations, some of which were loss-making or had minimal share capital, made significant contributions to political parties, particularly the ruling party at the center. The petitioner claimed that these donations were likely meant to evade regulatory scrutiny, buy protection from government oversight, or secure favorable amendments to existing laws.
Furthermore, Tamankar emphasized that he had compiled a detailed report based on publicly available data and had submitted a complaint to the CBI in April 2023, seeking a comprehensive investigation into the alleged quid pro quo transactions. However, according to Tamankar, the CBI had failed to take any action or even acknowledge his complaint. He therefore requested that the Delhi High Court intervene and order a court-monitored CBI probe into the matter. Tamankar’s counsel, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, cited the Lalita Kumari judgment, arguing that the CBI was obligated to investigate serious allegations of corruption, even if the donations were made in compliance with the electoral bond scheme. Sachdeva insisted that a CBI inquiry was necessary to uncover the truth behind the donations and their possible connection to corrupt practices.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other respondents, while not providing a detailed written response, opposed the maintainability of the petition. The division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, representing the Court, raised several concerns during the hearing about the petitioner’s case. The bench noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed a similar petition filed by Tamankar in August 2023, advising him to pursue alternative legal remedies. Specifically, the Supreme Court had observed that individual grievances regarding quid pro quo in political donations could not be entertained on the basis of assumptions or presumptions. The Court had suggested that such grievances should be addressed through existing legal procedures, such as filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows citizens to approach the local police or magistrates with their complaints.
The Delhi High Court, echoing the Supreme Court’s observations, questioned how it could direct the CBI to investigate allegations that were based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. Chief Justice Manmohan remarked that the donations in question were made pursuant to an Act of Parliament—the electoral bond scheme—and thus could not be automatically presumed to be the result of quid pro quo arrangements. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had not mandated a CBI investigation into the matter, indicating that the allegations did not warrant such an extraordinary measure.
The bench further referred to a Karnataka High Court judgment, which stated that CBI probes could not be ordered routinely but only in rare and compelling cases where the evidence clearly indicated a need for such an investigation. The Court expressed concern that Tamankar’s petition lacked sufficient legal basis and asked his counsel to file a short note addressing the maintainability of the petition, as well as the legal points that justified a CBI probe. While the petitioner’s counsel argued that a CBI investigation was necessary to uncover the full scope of the alleged corruption, the Court emphasized that Tamankar must first exhaust the alternative remedies available under Section 153(6) of the CrPC and other applicable legal provisions.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court’s decision on the matter primarily focused on the maintainability of Tamankar’s petition. Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took a cautious approach, refraining from passing a judgment on the merits of the case without first addressing the legal and procedural concerns surrounding the petition. The bench pointed out that the electoral bond scheme, being an Act of Parliament, allowed individuals and companies to make donations to political parties legally. Therefore, any allegations of corruption or quid pro quo stemming from such donations had to be supported by concrete evidence rather than assumptions.
The Court acknowledged that Tamankar had previously approached the Supreme Court with a similar plea, which had been dismissed. The bench noted that the Supreme Court had advised Tamankar to pursue his grievances through the appropriate legal channels, such as filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The High Court agreed with this view, stating that the remedies available under the law governing criminal procedure were sufficient for addressing Tamankar’s allegations.
Moreover, the Court remarked that a CBI investigation could not be ordered on the basis of assumptions or presumptions. Citing the Supreme Court’s observation that the allegations were speculative, the bench questioned how it could direct the CBI to investigate without concrete evidence of wrongdoing. The Court also referred to the Karnataka High Court’s ruling, which clarified that CBI probes should only be ordered in exceptional cases where there is compelling evidence to justify such an inquiry.
While the Court did not dismiss Tamankar’s concerns outright, it emphasized that he must first exhaust the alternative legal remedies available to him. The bench asked Tamankar’s counsel to submit a short note addressing the legal points regarding the maintainability of the petition before the case could proceed further. The next hearing on the matter was scheduled for October 29, 2023. Until then, the Court reserved its judgment on whether a CBI probe was warranted in this case.