PIL can't be based on media reports: Delhi High Court on plea for CBI probe into Electoral Bonds donations

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday took an unfavourable view of the public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into instances of corruption tied to the electoral bonds donations received by various political parties [Sudip Narayan Tamankar v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr]..A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the petition did not set out any concrete material but was based on data publicly available on the website of the Election Commission and certain newspaper reports."You have made no allegation in your petition. The petition is based on information put up on Election Commission of India portal and some co-relation from media. What you want is CBI should investigate. You want a roving enquiry to seek out information. Can this be done?" the Court asked.The Court also berated the rising tendency to file PILs seeking CBI probe based on media reports. "I don’t know how far newspapers can be relied on. This is speculative. There is no material except that there is a list of donors and amount is donated, that’s all," the Bench remarked.The Bench eventually adjourned the matter for further consideration on March 28. It told the petitioner to produce some concrete material for the petition to be considered."This is a PIL. There is a tendency these days to rush to the court that some scam has happened, so SIT be constituted CBI, Police investigation be ordered. That is not the jurisdiction of PIL. You have to bring some material on record. Only then we can consider," the Bench said. .After the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme earlier this year, the petitioner, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, had filed a complaint with the CBI in April 2024 on the basis of publicly available information about corruption connectected to the scheme.However, CBI has not taken any steps to investigate into the corruption or bribery angle behind the donations by the companies, the petition stated. A similar petition was earlier filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate petition if there is “a refusal to investigate or a closure report has been filed.”.“After the disclosure of the electoral bond information, it came to light that various donations would need thorough investigation as the same prima facie indicate corruption and bribery and other offences," the petition said.The petitioner claimed that as per data, companies under regulatory scrutiny from agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or Income Tax (IT) Department made substantial contributions to ruling parties through electoral bonds.It further stated that the evidence indicated quid pro quo arrangements among political entities, corporations, government officials investigative and regulatory bodies."It was revealed that contracts were being awarded to people in huge proximity. Companies under investigation benefited from donating to political parties. We sought SIT investigation at Supreme Court. Supreme Court did not allow SIT to be constituted, but we were given the liberty to approach the agencies and to approach court if needed," petitioner's counsel Pranav Sachdeva told the Court.However, the counsel for CBI, Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh Kumar, opposed the plea."In many cases CBI is already investigating. He is doubting on ED, CBI and Income Tax department also? His plea is vague. He has to satisfy court that the petition is maintainable," the CBI counsel said. The Court also took exception to the specific insistence by the petitioner for CBI probe. "What is this argument that only CBI will investigate? So some cognisable offence takes place is central government office, is it not open to the person affected to file complaint to local police?" Justice Upadhyaya said.The Court rejected petitioner's request to issue notice, and observed that allegations made on the basis of newspaper reports are not reliable.It then posted the case for further hearing on March 28 when the petitioner has to produce additional material to support his plea.