Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

There was a stir in support of the demand for a separate State of Uttarakhand comprising of certain hilly regions of the State of U.P. and some other areas. The stir collected momentum when the State Government issued a notification in 1994 pertaining to reservation in educational institutions based on region-wise domicile. The agitationists fixed up the Gandhi Jayanti day in 1994 for staging a public rally at New Delhi for the twin objective of protesting against the notifica­tion and to press the demand for the separate State. The administra­tion took stern measures to resist the protestors’ march towards the National Capital as the officials claimed to have received secret information that the proposed rallysts were carrying lethal weapons in violation of the prohibitory orders issued by the Government and might create serious law and order situation. The confrontation which ensued had resulted in lot of blood-shed including loss of many lives, infli­ction of injuries on persons belonging to both sides, outraging the modesty of women ranging to ravishments.

2. An association styling itself as “Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samity” (for short “the Samity”) moved a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad (before the Allahabad Bench) on 6.10.1994, for different directions to be issued to the authorities to meet the consequence of the said confrontation. A Division Bench of the High Court issued certain interim directions on 7.10.1994 one of which was to the Cen­tral Bureau of Investigation (`CBI’ for short) to enquire into the allegations of “human rights violations”. The substance of the afore­said directions is extracted below :

“Thus, this Court calls upon the Home Secretary, Government of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation, through its Director General, by a writ of mandamus, to execute the investigation on the incidents which have happened in the regions of Garhwal and Kumaun, between 17 June 1994 (the date of issue of the first order securing reservations in educational institutions including its applicability to these regions) and until the investigation is determined. The investigation will also include the incidents narrated in this peti­tion in the towns of Khatima, Mussoorie, Dehradun and near Muzaaffar­nagar. The scope of the enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investiga­tion, on its discretion, will not remain curtailed to these towns relating to deaths and injuries and molestation of women by police.

But, the investigation will be confined to : (a) the agitations in the regions of Garhwal and Kumaun, and to include the Muzafarnagar inci­dent, (b) the matters connected with the agitations for Uttarakhanad only, (c) consequential detentions of the agitationists, (da) the agitators detained, (e) details of injuries, deaths and molestation of women, and (f) damage to property, as a consequence of these agita­tions within the aforesaid regions.”

3. The CBI took up investigation purusant to the said directions and laid charge-sheet against certain officers on 19.1.1995 for offences under Sections 109 and 120-B read with Sections 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction of the State Government was obtained for launching prosecution in respect of those offences. Some of the ac­cused who were arrayed in the said charge-sheet filed Writ Petitions Nos. 3463 and 3515 of 1995 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, in challenge of the validity of the sanction order issued by the State Government for prosecuting them.

4. On 9.2.1996 the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad (Ravi S. Dhawan and A.B. Srivastava, JJ.) disposed of the first mentioned writ petition filed by the Samity holding, inter alia, that no sanc­tion of the Government is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) for prosecuting the officials as for any of the offences committed by them while resisting the rallysts. In view of the aforesaid stand adopted b