At this stage, Justice Pardiwala said the Court was not questioning the petitioners’ motive but it cannot order a roving enquiry.
“But this will be far fetched roving enquiry. What will SIT to do on the basis of quid pro quo,” the judge said.
Bhushan cited more cases to argue there companies purchased the electoral bonds after facing action from central agencies.
The Court, however, did not appear to be convinced.
“But we have to see what is the material on record. Who will say that it is quid pro quo,” Justice Misra said.
Adding to this, Justice Pardiwala said,
“But the SIT is not the only answer. Then you pray for recovering the amount. This relief was declined in the main judgment.”
Bhushan responded that if there was quid pro quo then it becomes proceeds of crime and like theft, that material needs to be recovered.
“I am not saying do it right away. We are saying once investigation is complete then let that happen. No party can be allowed to sit on money which they received by kickback or bribes and thus they should return the fund,” he said.
On the fear of a roving inquiry, Bhushan said,
“The option is to appoint a retired judge along with some retired CBI officers etc to look into this as a preliminary inquiry and then decide the course of the probe.”
Source: Barandbench
