Article 32 relief for electoral bond claims rejected as premature; SIT, recovery, and reassessment directions declined.

Article 32 relief was held inappropriate for electoral bond grievances based on alleged quid pro quo, because such claims would require a roving inquiry and the ordinary remedies under the criminal procedure framework, or where appropriate Article 226, had not first been shown ineffective. The Court also held that directions for recovery of alleged proceeds of crime and reopening of assessments would intrude into statutory functions assigned to competent authorities under the relevant enactments. On that basis, the request for a court-monitored SIT and the allied consequential reliefs was declined, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after disclosure of electoral bond data, the Court should direct a court-monitored investigation by an SIT and grant other consequential reliefs such as recovery of alleged proceeds of crime and reopening of assessments in exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reliefs sought rested on assumptions of quid pro quo and alleged involvement of officials, which would require a roving enquiry into the purchase of electoral bonds, the donations made, and the surrounding arrangements. Individual grievances of this nature are to be pursued through the remedies available in law, including the criminal procedure framework and, where appropriate, Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that resort to Article 32 at this stage would be premature and inappropriate because the ordinary remedies had not been invoked and their inefficacy had not been established. It further held that directions for recovery and reopening of assessments would intrude into statutory functions entrusted to competent authorities under the relevant enactments.

Conclusion: The request for an SIT and the allied reliefs were declined, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---