Review petition challenges Supreme Court dismissal of plea to probe sale of electoral bonds

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its August 2, 2024 decision to dismiss a plea to confiscate ₹16,518 crore received by political parties under the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was declared unconstitutional..The plea filed by Advocate Dr Khem Singh Bhati contends that the substantial funds involved quid pro quo transactions, where benefits were allegedly exchanged between political parties and corporate donors. Data shows that 23 political parties received approximately ₹12,516 crore from over 1,210 donors, with 21 donors contributing more than ₹100 crores each..The petition listed the top five political parties receiving the highest donations:BJP: ₹5,594 croreTMC: ₹1,592 croreINC: ₹1,351 croreBRS: ₹1,191 croreDMK: ₹632 crore.Supreme Court strikes down Electoral Bonds scheme.The petitioner has thus requested the Supreme Court to direct the Central government, the Election Commission of India and the Central Vigilance Commission to confiscate the amounts received under the scheme by the involved political parties. .Additionally, the plea seeks the formation of a committee led by a former Supreme Court judge to investigate the alleged illegal benefits provided to donors by major political parties. It also requested a reassessment of the tax exemptions claimed by these parties and the imposition of taxes, interest and penalties on the received amounts. .A Bench of then Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had in August last year dismissed a batch of petitions that in particular sought a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the misuse of the Electoral Bonds scheme, particularly the allegations of quid pro quo between donors and political parties."We decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution," the Court had ordered.The Court noted that on the date of purchase of electoral bonds, there was a statutory enactment of Parliament permitting such purchase and donations to political parties.It went on to observe that the allegations of quid pro quo behind donations to the political parties was based on assumptions."The petitions are founded on two assumptions that there was a quid pro quo in cases where there was award of contract or change in policy and that certain officials of investigative agency was involved and thereby probe by normal process of law will not be fair or independent. We have highlighted underlying premise of submissions to indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and would require court to enter into roving inquiry into purchase of electoral bonds, donations made to political parties and arrangements made in nature of quid pro quo.".The Bench suggested that the petitioner had alternative remedies available, such as moving the appropriate High Court..The petition has outlined the following grounds for review:1. The judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the ADR case has the effect of wiping out the statutory provisions regarding electoral bonds from the inception as the judgment was not declared to operate prospectively; hence, reliance upon the parliamentary legislation in para 10 of the impugned order as one of the grounds for dismissal of the writ petition suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record.2. The impugned order by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges has the effect of modifying the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the ADR case passed by a Bench of five Hon’ble judges, inasmuch as this Hon’ble Court by the impugned order has treated the Constitution Bench judgment to operate prospectively.3. The finding recorded in para 15 and 16 of the impugned order that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum governing criminal procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution is an apparent error on the face of the record since there is no other efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to seek confiscation of the proceeds of Electoral Bonds received by political parties.4. Disclosure of information regarding electoral bonds in terms of the direction of this Hon’ble Court clearly establishes that there was quid pro quo between the donations made to the political parties and benefits received by the corporate houses, and the observation in paragraph 12 and 13 that the Writ Petition is based on assumptions about quid pro quo between the donor and donee and the petitioner is seeking a roving inquiry suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record.