2010 (2) Supreme 548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam and J. M. Panchal, JJ.
Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Sikkim & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. (s) 353 of 2006
Decided on : 25-3-2010
(1998) 1 SCC 226 – Referred to
(b) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Article 14 cannot be invoked in case of corruption. (Para 9)
(c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Alleged acts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such as those of ‘possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income’ as well as ‘criminal misconduct’ – Onus of launching an investigation into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies. (Para 10)
(d) Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 142 – It is not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigation. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
1. The petitioners have levelled some allegations against the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim. The crux of these allegations is that he has misused his public office to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
2. The petitioners have also alleged that he has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the cost of the Government of India and the Government of Sikkim.
3. The relief sought by the petitioners is a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations that have been levelled against him.
Finding of the Court:
It is not proper for the Supreme Court to grant the relief sought for.
Result : Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI. —
1. The present writ petition was instituted in this Court by way of public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have levelled some allegations against the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim who was impleaded as Respondent No.2 herein. The crux of these allegations is that he has misused his public office to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioners have also alleged that he has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the cost of the Government of India and the Government of Sikkim. The relief sought by the petitioners is the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations that have been levelled against him.
2. It may be recalled that the State of Sikkim had become a full fledged state of the Union of India, following the enactment of the Thirty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution which was given effect in 1975. The said amendment had inserted Article 371F into the constitutional text which lays down special provisions with respect to the governance of the State of Sikkim. We must also take note of the fact that even though the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been extended to the State of Sikkim in 1989, it has not been enforced till date on account of the constitutionally mandated special treatment. The non- enforcement of the Income Tax Act is a relevant consideration since it entails that the income details of individuals who belong to and reside in Sikkim are not recorded by the Income Tax Department. Furthermore, the finances of the government of Sikkim are enhanced by the various developmental and welfare schemes of Government of India. Respondent No. 2 is the founder President of the Sikkim Democratic Front and he has been serving as the Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim since 12th December, 1994. Under his leadership, the Sikkim Democratic Front has been successful in the periodic elections held to constitute the State Legislative Assembly.
3. However, the petitioners have levelled some serious allegations of wrongdoing on part of the second respondent. In Annexure P-1 of the writ petition submitted before this Court, a list of his family members has been provided. This list refers to 21 members which includes 2 wives, 4 sons, 1 daughter, 4 brothers, 6 sisters-in-law, 1 father-in- law, and 3 brothers-in- law. It has been pointed out that in order to contest the elections to the State Legislative Assembly from the 13- Damthang Constituency in the year 2004, he had declared his family’s assets taken together to be Rs. 4,76,54,238/-. This declaration was made as per the requirements of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, the petitioners have alleged that the total assets actually amount to more than Rs. 25 crores.
4. In Paragraph 29 of the writ petition, the petitioners have incorporated a detailed description of the movable and immovable assets that allegedly belong to Respondent No. 2 and his relatives. Furthermore, the petitioners have also alleged that Respondent No. 2 has acquired several immovable properties either in his own name or in the name of his relatives or in the name of his nominees by way of misappropriating funds from the public exchequer. In Annexure P-20, the petitioners have alleged that the Government of Sikkim acting through the Sikkim Power Development Corporation has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 15.38 crores from the public exchequer. The petitioners have supported these allegations by submitting that the relevant information was procured in response to applications filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It will also be useful to reproduce the prayer sought by the petitioners in the following words:
“(a) issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the awarding of government contracts and/
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.