Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, JJ.
Manohar Lal Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120, 463, 429, 498, 515 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF 2013
Decided On : 17-12-2013
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 2(h) - Investigation - Includes all proceedings for collection of evidence - Consists of steps from proceeding to the spot to collection of evidence to filing of charge sheet. (Paras 32 and 33)
AIR 1955 SC 196 - Relied upon
(b) Administration of Justice - Court monitored investigation by CBI - Intended to ensure proper progress in fair investigation without directing or channeling the mode or manner of investigation - However monitoring is different from supervision - To supervise means to observe and direct the execution of a task - To monitor only means to maintain surveillance - If court supervises an investigation it becomes party to the final form under section 173(1) Cr.PC and the trial would become farce - Therefore Court only monitors and not supervise the investigation. (Paras 43 to 45)
(c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Constitutionality of section 6A, CVC Act pending before Constitution Bench - Related issue left open. (Para 47)
(d) Constitution of India - Article 142(1) - Power under Article 142(1) is plenary - To do 'complete justice' - Cannot be limited by any prohibition or restriction contained in any law - In exercising this power Court has to take note of express prohibitions in any substantive statutory provision based on some fundamental principles of public policy (Paras 49 and 52)
1963 Supp (1) SCR 885; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1991) 4 SCC 406; (1976) 3 SCC 1; (1986) 1 SCC 75; (1988) 4 SCC 387; (1991) 4 SCC 584; (1998) 4 SCC 409; (2009) 9 SCC 610 - Relied upon
(e) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6A - Court monitored investigation - Requirement of prior sanction - Contention that it cannot be waived even in Court monitored investigation - Rejected - Any officer having reason to believe that he is being unnecessarily harassed by CBI can always apply to the Court for protection of his rights - Monitoring by Court in itself is a check on CBI to act fair - Section 6A cannot impede exercise of constitutional power by Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136 and 142 of the Constitution. (Paras 54 to 56)
(f) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - - Sections 6A and section 6 - Both operate in different spheres - But law laid down in respect of section 6 can be extended while considering applicability of section 6A. (Para 59)
(2010) 3 SCC 571; (1998) 1 SCC 226 - Relied upon
(1991) 3 SCC 655 - Distinguished
(2005) 2 SCC 317; (1980) 1 SCC 554 - Referred
(g) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6A - Approval of Central Government in Court monitored inquiry/ investigation is not necessary. (Para 65)
Per Madan B. Lokur, J.
(h) Administration of Justice - Investigation - It is crucial from point of view of all concerned to conclude the investigation expeditiously - While monitoring investigation Court should take into consideration provisions of section 6A, DSPE Act so as to protect senior government officials from frivolous and vexatious complaints - It should also prevent such officials from exercising influence or prolonging grant of previous approval by the Central Government thereby effectively scuttling the investigation. (Paras 24, 25)
(2012) 7 SCC 407 - Relied upon
WP (C) No.11550 of 2009 (Delhi) - Cited with approval
(1970) 1 SCC 595; (1998) 1 SCC 226 - Referred
(i) Interpretation of statutes - Office Memorandum - Cannot be used to interpret a statute - Office Memorandum can be amended or withdrawn at the whims of the executive. (Para 28)
(j) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 155 and 156 - Local Police can investigate a senior Government official without prior approval of Central Government - But CBI cannot do it in view of section 6A, DSPE Act - This is anomalous - CBI by not having functional autonomy, cannot ask central government to expedite previous approval - Consequently, investigations can be paralysed by delays, both intentional and unintentional - Therefore Section 6A cannot be interpreted to be putting a fetter on the power of a constitutional court in a case of a continuing mandamus. (Paras 29, 33 and 34)
(2011) 4 SCC 1; (2012) 3 SCC 64; (1970) 1 SCC 595; (1998) 1 SCC 226 - Relied upon
(k) Administrative Law - Fairness of action - Presumption - Applies equally to senior civil officers and CBI -Prior to section 6A, DSPE Act CBI investigated cases without obtaining previous approval - It cannot be said that in that period CBI investigated frivolous or vexatious cases against senior officers or harassed them - Court monitored investigation is additional safeguard of fairness. (Para 35)
(2005) 2 SCC 317 - Relied upon
(l) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Court monitored investigation - Originated, like PIL, from Article 32 - Is in nature of continuing mandamus - Section 6A, DSPE Act cannot fetter powers under Article 32. (Para 37, 38, 40 and 41)
(1998) 1 SCC 226; (2008) 1 SCC 407; (2010) 3 SCC 571; (1984) 3 SCC 161 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants of the offences under the PC Act relating to allocation of coal blocks for the period from 1993 to 2005 and 2006 to 2009. Few regular cases were also registered. The inquiries and investigations into the allocation of coal blocks are being monitored by the Supreme Court and the CBI has been submitting reports about the status of the progress made in that regard.
The two key issues arising in this case in the context of section 6A of the CVC Act are: first, as to why clarification should not be made that the approval from the Central Government under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act for investigation of the offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act is not necessary as it is the stand of the Government that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from the Government to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC); and, second, why the approval of the Government was necessary in respect of "Court-monitored" or "Court-directed" investigations.
Finding of the Court:
The issue was answered in the negative.
Result : Petition allowded.
ORDER
R.M. LODHA, J.
The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (“DSPE Act” for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act” for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants, inter alia, of the offences under the PC Act relating to allocation of coal blocks for the period from 1993 to 2005 and 2006 to 2009. Few regular cases have also been registered. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the inquiries and investigations into the allocation of coal blocks are being monitored by this Court and the CBI has been submitting reports about the status of the progress made in that regard.
2. On 08.05.2013, the Court noted that in the matter of investigation, CBI needed insulation from extraneous influences of the controlling executive. On that day, the Court wanted to know from the learned Attorney General, whether the Central Government was intending to put in place the appropriate law for the independence of the CBI and its functional autonomy and insulate it from extraneous influences so that CBI is viewed as a non-partisan investigating agency. The learned Attorney General sought time to seek instructions and report to the Court by way of an affidavit on behalf of the Central Government. The matter was, accordingly, fixed for July 10, 2013.
3. In pursuance of the order dated 08.05.2013, an affidavit was filed by the Central Government. In that affidavit various actions which were taken in compliance of the directions of this Court in Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Anr; (1998) 1 SCC 226 were indicated. In the affidavit, it was also stated that a Group of Ministers (GoM) has been constituted to consider the aspects noted in the order of 08.05.2013. The GoM had proposed certain amendments in the law; the proposals of GOM have also been approved by the Cabinet.
4. On 10.07.2013, the Court observed that the amendments as proposed in the DSPE Act were likely to take some time and, accordingly, put to the learned Attorney General two queries, first, as to why clarification should not be made that the approval from the Central Government under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act for investigation of the offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act is not necessary as it is the stand of the Government that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from the Government to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and, second, why the approval of the Government was necessary in respect of “Court-monitored” or “Court-directed” investigations.
5. In Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Anr; (1998) 1 SCC 226, this Court was approached under Article 32 of the Constitution allegedly as there was inertia by the CBI in the investigations into Jain Diaries case where the accusations made were against high dignitaries. The background that necessitated the monitoring of the investigation by this Court is indicated in the first paragraph[2][[2] These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India brought in public interest, to begin with, did not appear to have the potential of escalating to the dimensions they reached or to give rise to several issues of considerable significance to the implementation of rule of law, which they have, during their progress. They began as yet another complaint of inertia by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in matters where the accusation made was against high dignitaries. It was not the only matter of its kind during the recent past. The primary question was: Whether it is within the domain of judicial
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
