Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
The Janata Dal Appellant
Versus
H.S. Chowdhary and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 304 to 311 of 1991 with Writ Petn. (Cri) No. 114 of 1991
Decided on 28-8-1992.
WITH
Harinder Singh Chowdhary, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
WITH
Communist Party of India (Marxist), Appellant
Versus
H.S. Chowdhary and others, Respondents.
WITH
Indian Congress (Socialist) by General Secretary, Appellant
Versus
H.S. Choudhary and others, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India, Appellant v. H.S. Choudhary and another, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India and another, Appellant
Versus
The Honble High Court of Delhi, Respondents.
WITH
Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 21, 51 -A , 77 , 73 , 118 , 32 , 226 and 300-A - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 409,420,468, 471 and 165 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 340, 482 , 119, 397, 401 , 154, 166-A , 285 , 91, 93, 94, 105 , 156(3), 157, 159, 167 (2), 190, 202, 164, 306 397/482 – Cheating and dishonesty - Demand for confirmation - Evidence - Ministry of Defence Government of India approved in August, proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters introduction of 155 mm calibre medium gun both towed and self-propelled to meet its defence operational requirements - Choice for obtaining said gun system/guns was short listed there was a further - Order was placed by the Government of India with Bofors for supply of 410 numbers mm Field Howitzer - related contract for supplying gun package other related agreements/ contracts were concluded – Held, Jurisdiction and made the statement is unwarranted and uncalled for – Court feel that any further deliberation on this matter may affect the merits of case at any later point of time – Court refrain from making any more observation on aspect as the matter is at threshold of the investigation – Court are constrained to set aside statement, holding opinion of Justice Chawla in this regard has no legal effect or consequence - So far as the rest of the alleged illegalities are concerned, we straightway say that those grounds are not available for suo motu exercise of power in light of the well settled legal principles enunciated by this Court for the exercise of such powers - quash later part of the impugned order taking suo motu cognizance under Ss. 397, 401 read with S. 482 of the Code issuing show cause notice to the CBI and the State - Court make it clear do not express any opinion on the-merits of case including the legal tenability of the alleged illegalities opined in his impugned order - Ordered Accordingly
The legal document provides a comprehensive overview of various legal proceedings, judicial decisions, and principles related to criminal law, procedural powers, and the scope of public interest litigation. Key points include:
Jurisdiction and Court Powers: The document emphasizes the importance of courts exercising their inherent, revisory, and extraordinary powers judiciously, especially under provisions that allow suo motu cognizance, issuance of letters rogatory, and quashing of proceedings. It highlights that such powers should be exercised with caution to prevent abuse and ensure justice (!) (!) .
Investigation and Evidence Collection: Courts have a significant role in aiding investigations, including participating in evidence collection and issuing directions to investigative agencies. However, they must respect the statutory boundaries of police and investigative powers, intervening only in cases of procedural irregularities or abuse (!) (!) .
Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation: The scope of standing has been broadened in the context of PIL, allowing individuals acting bona fide and having sufficient interest to approach courts for public causes. Nonetheless, the courts maintain a vigilant stance against frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated petitions, stressing that genuine PILs are motivated by public interest and not private or oblique considerations (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Courts in Social Justice: The judiciary has evolved to address social, economic, and political challenges by adopting procedural innovations, expanding access to justice, and actively participating in enforcing constitutional rights. PIL has become a vital tool for marginalized groups to seek redress where they lack direct access (!) (!) (!) .
Limitations and Cautions: While courts have relaxed traditional rules of standing, they caution against misuse by busybodies or those with private motives. The importance of acting in good faith, bona fide interest, and with a genuine concern for public welfare is underscored. Courts are advised to exercise restraint and avoid interference in investigations unless clear legal violations or irregularities are evident (!) (!) .
Procedural Safeguards: The document underscores that procedures are meant to facilitate justice, not hinder it. Courts should exercise their powers to prevent miscarriage of justice, but also respect statutory limits, especially in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The exercise of inherent powers must be balanced with adherence to legal boundaries (!) (!) .
Judicial Discretion and Abuse Prevention: The importance of exercising judicial discretion to prevent abuse of process, frivolous litigation, and to uphold the dignity of the judiciary is stressed. Courts should intervene only in exceptional cases where irregularities or misconduct threaten justice or public interest (!) (!) .
Overall, the document advocates for a balanced, cautious, and principled exercise of judicial powers, emphasizing that courts should promote justice and uphold the rule of law while preventing misuse of their authority and safeguarding individual rights within the framework of constitutional and procedural laws.
JUDGMENT
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:—We gave our conclusions in our earlier Order dated 27th August 1991 (reported in 1991 (3) SCC 756) reserving the reasons to be given later. Accordingly, we render our reasons in the present judgment.
2. We feel that a prefatory note, though not the detailed facts of the case, is necessary for disposal of these appeals and writ petition. The facts culled out from various documents placed before this court are as follows:
The Ministry of Defence, Government of India approved in August, 1980 a proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters (HQ) recommending, inter alia, the introduction of 155 mm calibre medium gun both towed and self-propelled to meet its defence operational requirements. The choice for obtaining the said gun system/guns was short listed in December, 1982 to (1) M/ s. Sofma of France, (2) M/s. A.B. Bofors of Sweden (briefly called Bofors), (3) M/s. International Military Services of U.K. and (4) M/s. Voest Alpine of Austria. In November, 1985, there was a further shortlisting of Sofma and Bofors. Finally, the order was placed by the Government of India with Bofors on 24th March, 1986 for the supply of 410 numbers (400 plus 10 free) of 155 mm Field Howitzer 77-B gun system/ spare guns vide contract No. 6(9)84/ D (GS-IV) for a total amount of SEK 8410.66 million (Swedish Kroners) (equivalent to about Rs. 1437.72 crores or Rs. 14377.2 million). The related contract for supplying the gun package (towed) and other related agreements/ contracts were concluded and signed on 24th March 1986 with M/s. A. B. Bofors.
3. On 17 April, 1987, some leading newspapers of our country gave prominent coverage to a Swedish Radio Broadcast made in the previous day, broadcasting that bribes had been paid to senior Indian politicians and key Defence figures to win the contract awarded by the Government of India to M/s. Bofors of Sweden on 24 March, 1986.
4. The Swedish Radio repeated the allegation on 17 April, 1987 claiming that it had documentary proof of the payoffs in four instalments to Indian accounts in Swiss Banks and it had checked with Skandinaviska Enskilds Banken, the bankers for Bofors. On the other hand, Bofors denied paying any kickbacks to Indian politicians or officials for the deal involving the supply of 155 mm Towed howitzers and also issued a statement on 17th April, 1987, itself which statement reads thus:
"AB Bofors has not paid, or conspired to pay, any bribes in connection with the order. All allegations to the contrary are hereby categorically denied."
5. The Government of India on 17th April, 1987 issued a statement denying the allegations contained in the news items based on the broadcast report, made by the Swedish Radio and Television in connection with the arms order placed on Swedish firm, Bofors and categorized the news item as false, baseless and mischievous. The part of the said statement reads thus:
"Governments policy is not to permit any clandestine or irregular payments in contracts. Any breach of this policy by any one will be most severely dealt with."
6. On 20th April, 1987, the Minister of Defence (Shri K. C. Pant) made a suo motu statement on the subject in Lok Sabha stating inter alia that on the eve of finalising the contract, in response to a reiteration of Governments policy and a demand for confirmation, M/s. Bofors had replied, vide their letter of the 10th March, 1986 that they did not employ any Representative/ Agent in India for the project. However, for administrative services, e.g. hotel bookings, transportation, forwarding of letters, telexes etc., they use the services of a local firm.
7. The Defence Minister further stated "if any evidence is produced involving violations of the law, the matter will be thoroughly investigated and the guilty, whoever they may be, punished."
8. A similar statement was made by the Minister of State for Defence in Rajya Sabha on 21st April, 1987.
9. This issue created a storm of controversies both in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Se
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
