Back
2012 (4) Supreme 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam & Dipak Misra, JJ.
Ms. Mayawati — Petitioner(s)
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2008
Decided on : 06-07-2012
Facts of the Case :
A. An Order was passed herein in the instant case in Writ Petition titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. directing CBI to conduct an inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in said writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by officers/persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. An Order was passed by Apex Court issuing certain directions to CBI to interrogate and verify assets of persons concerned with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores alleged to have been released without proper sanction for said Project.
B.The only question raised in this writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether FIR dated 05.10.2003 lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner to investigate into the matter of alleged disproportionate assets was beyond the scope of the directions passed by Apex Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 in I.A. in W.P. titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others.
Findings of the Court :
A. Apex Court was concerned with illegality/irregularity committed by officers/persons in carrying out Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The main allegation related to an amount of Rs. 17 crores which was released by State Government without proper sanction. In order to find out who cleared the project and for what purpose it was cleared without obtaining necessary sanction from Department concerned and whether there was any illegality/irregularity committed by officers/persons, Apex Court thought an inquiry by CBI was considered necessary. In such a situation, CBI was directed to interrogate and verify their assets. However there was no occasion for Apex Court to consider the alleged disproportionate assets of petitioner separately that too from 1995 to 2003 when admittedly Rs. 17 crores were released in September, 2002.
B.. Inasmuch as there being no consideration of alleged disproportionate assets at any stage of proceedings while dealing with Taj Corridor matter, there could not have been any such direction to lodge another FIR exclusively against petitioner under P.C. Act. In the absence of any specific direction from Apex Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or any subsequent orders, CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR dated 05.10.2003.Impugned FIR being without jurisdiction was held liable to be quashed. Writ petition was allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court emphasized that an order directing an investigation by the CBI can only be issued after the Court considers the material on record and concludes that there is a prima facie case warranting such investigation. This order must be preceded by an opportunity for hearing the affected persons (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the CBI is limited by the scope of the Court's directions. Specifically, in this case, the Court's orders related solely to the irregularities in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and the associated release of funds without proper sanction. There was no direction for the CBI to investigate the petitioner’s assets beyond this scope (!) (!) .
The Court found that the second FIR, which was lodged against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, exceeded the jurisdiction granted by the Court’s order. The Court noted that there was no specific direction to lodge a separate FIR concerning the petitioner’s assets, especially for the period from 1995 to 2003, which was unrelated to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project (!) (!) .
It was observed that the investigation into the petitioner’s assets was initiated without proper authority or jurisdiction, particularly because the Court's orders did not authorize such an inquiry. The Court also pointed out that the FIR was filed without obtaining the necessary consent from the State Government, violating statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the CBI and other authorities failed to adhere to the Court’s specific directions and overstepped their jurisdiction by proceeding with investigations beyond the scope of the Court’s order. This included lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019, which the Court held was without legal basis (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the order of the Court, including the directions to interrogate and verify assets, was confined only to the irregularities related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and not to the petitioner’s assets generally or from earlier years (!) (!) .
The Court also addressed procedural issues, including the fact that the FIR was filed based on a complaint by an individual not authorized or designated as a complainant, and that the investigation was initiated without proper legal authority or adherence to statutory procedures (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Court held that the FIR and subsequent investigations related to the petitioner’s assets were illegal and exceeded the powers conferred by the Court’s prior orders. Therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed, and the investigation proceedings were to be stopped (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the Court’s constitutional powers should be exercised with caution, especially when directing investigations, to prevent overreach and preserve the balance of jurisdiction between different authorities (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court’s decision was based on the principle that investigations and FIRs must be grounded in clear Court directions, statutory compliance, and respect for jurisdictional boundaries. Any deviation or overreach by investigating agencies is subject to judicial review and can be declared invalid if found to be unlawful (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam, J.-The only question raised in this writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”) against the petitioner herein to investigate into the matter of alleged disproportionate assets is beyond the scope of the directions passed by this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 in I.A. No. 376 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 696?
2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition, is summarized hereunder:
(a) On the date of filing of this writ petition before this Court, the petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P. Earlier also, the petitioner had been the Chief Minister of U.P. for three times. The petitioner had also served as a Member of Parliament many a time both as a Member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and had also served as a Member of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of the State of U.P. The petitioner is a law graduate and had been a teacher from 1977 to 1984. At present, the petitioner is the President of a National Political Party called as “Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)”, which is one of the six National Parties recognized by the Election Commission of India.
(b) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387 of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report.
(c) By means of an order dated 21.08.2003, this Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project. When the case was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2003, a report was submitted by the CBI and it was directed to be kept in a sealed cover in the Registry.
(d) This Court, in its further order dated 18.09.2003, on the basis of the report dated 11.09.2003, granted further time to the CBI for verification of the assets of the officers/persons involved. The CBI- Respondent No. 2 herein submitted a report on 18.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of order dated 18.09.2003 wherein the CBI was directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra.
(e) Pursuant to the orders of this Court, an FIR was lodged on 05.10.2003 being RC No. 0062003A0018/2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against several persons including the petitioner herein. In the said FIR, certain details and several developments which took place with regard to the aforesaid Project have been given. As per the allegations contained in the report dated 11.09.2003, several irregularities were allegedly being found in the aforesaid Project. Pursuant to the same, investigation has been completed and the report was forwarded to obtain the sanction from the competent authority, namely, the Governor for prosecuting the Chief Minster of the State. The Governor, by order dated 03.06.2007, declined to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner.
(f) According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid FIR, it was stated that this Court also directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry pertaining to the assets of the officers/individuals concerned in the aforesaid Project as mentioned in the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid case in order to ascertain whether any mis-appropriation of funds have been done with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores relea
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
