2012 Supreme(SC) 100

2012 (1) Supreme 494
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Center For PIL & Others — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010
Decided on : 2-2-2012

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
In view of proviso to Section 8(1)(b) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the CBI in a particular manner.

Headnote:Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003- Sections 8(1) , 3(2) -’2G Spectrum Case’- Writ petition filed by appellants for ordering an investigation by CBI into ‘2G Spectrum Scam’ - Dismissed by High Court -Appeal thereagainst-Allowed by Apex Court directing CBI to conduct investigation - Prayer made by appellants for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department in ‘2G case’-Although, initially CBI may not have taken up matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after 16.12.2010 it has satisfactorily conducted investigation- Hence held that there was no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise further investigation being conducted by CBI and other agencies-Again, power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the CBI in a particular manner -However, keeping in view the nature of case and involvement of large number of influential persons, held appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the Case- This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act-Direction given that in future copies of report(s) of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies shall be made available to Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes- Direction further given that Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine report(s) and send their observations / suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with report(s) of CBI and other investigating agencies (Paras 11, 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        A Prayer was made by appellants herein in the instant case for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department in ‘2G case’. Contention of Appellants that keeping in view the nature of the case in which political and executive functionaries of the State had connived with the businessmen for causing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of many thousand crore rupees, some of whom had already been chargesheeted before the Special Judge, CBI, this Court should appoint independent persons for assistance in monitoring the further progress of the case.

       Findings of the Court :

        Although, initially CBI may not have taken up matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after 16.12.2010 it has satisfactorily conducted investigation. Hence held that there was no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise further investigation being conducted by CBI and other agencies. However, keeping in view the nature of case and involvement of large number of influential persons, held appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the Case.

        This course to be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act.

        B. Direction was given that in future copies of report(s) of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies shall be made available to Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes. Direction was further given that Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine report(s) and send their observations / suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with report(s) of CBI and other investigating agencies.