1. Writ petition challenging the interim appointment of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and seeking transparency in the selection process under the DSPE Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
COMMON CAUSE AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 54 OF 2019
Decided on : 19-02-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the appearing parties :Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Advocate, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate and Ms. Cheryl D’Souza, Advocate.
For the appearing parties :Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Advocate, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate and Ms. Cheryl D’Souza, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Without availing statutory remedies a writ petition will not be maintainable.
Without availing statutory remedies a writ petition will not be maintainable.
Subject
Appointment of CBI Director - Interim Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 4A – Appointment of CBI Director – Selection Committee passing resolution authorizing Government to appoint Interim Director of CBI – Held, such appointment not unauthorized or illegal. (Para 16)
(1998) 1 SCC 226; (2013) 10 SCC 359; W.P. [C] Nos. 348 & 355/2010 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petitioner filing 2 RTI applications – Concerned authorities replying the same – Advising to file appeal if dissatisfied – Petitioner not filing any appeal – Reply to said RTI applications cannot be made subject matter of writ petition. (Para 19)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petitioner seeking appointment of regular Director of CBI – Regular Director since appointed – No ground to interfere. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition has been filed to direct Union of India to appoint a regular Director of CBI forthwith by following the procedure laid down in section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.1.2019 issued by Union of India appointing Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director of CBI.
Finding of the Court:
Without availing statutory remedies a writ petition will not be maintainable.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended the interim appointment bypassed the statutory selection committee and lacked transparency, violating the DSPE Act and the Right to Information Act. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The court found the selection committee had authorized the interim appointment via resolution and the petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies under the RTI Act. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. An interim appointment of the Director of CBI is valid if authorized by the selection committee constituted under Section 4A of the DSPE Act. (Para 14 , 16 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as the interim appointment was authorized and a regular Director has since been appointed. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Is the appointment of an interim Director of the CBI legal if the statutory selection committee authorizes it?
Yes. If the selection committee constituted under Section 4A of the DSPE Act passes a resolution authorizing the government to appoint a suitable officer as interim Director, such an appointment is considered authorized and legal. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
7. Can a petitioner seek judicial interference for RTI grievances without filing a statutory appeal?
No. When a government department provides a response to an RTI application and informs the applicant of the available appellate authority under the RTI Act, the applicant must exhaust those statutory remedies before seeking court interference. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
8. What are the criteria for recommending a panel of officers for the post of Director of the CBI?
Under Section 4A of the DSPE Act, the committee recommends a panel based on seniority, integrity, and experience in investigating anti-corruption cases, chosen from officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct Union of India to appoint a regular Director of CBI forthwith by following the procedure laid down in section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.1.2019 issued by Union of India appointing Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director of CBI. A further prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ or direction to the Union of India to ensure that all records of deliberations and rational criteria of short listing and selection of the Director, CBI be properly recorded and made available to citizens inconsonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. A further prayer has been made to direct Union of India to ensure transparency in short listing, selection and appointment process of Director, CBI.
2. It is averred in the petition that the Government of India has failed to appoint Director of CBI as per section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and has instead appointed Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director of CBI in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
3. It is further averred that petitioner no. 1, Common Cause is a registered society and petition has been filed in bona fide public interest. However, the average annual income of the society in the last 3 financial years is approximately Rs. 1.17 crores. Petitioner No.2 is an RTI activist and had filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information about the process of appointment of the new Director of CBI in terms of the process adopted for short listing candidates, if any, minutes of meetings of the search and selection committee, none of which were provided to her in violation of the RTI Act. The average annual income of petitioner No.2 for the last three financial years is about Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioners have no private/oblique motive. Petitioners have not made any representation to the respondent in this regard because of extreme urgency of the matter in issue except for the letter written by Common Cause on 9.1.2019 for initiating the process of appointment of regular Director, CBI.
4. It is also averred that CBI is the premier investigation agency in the country. It investigates corruption-related offenses connected with the Central Government and also cases connected with State Government entities. This Court has entrusted important cases of corruption and violation of human rights to CBI for investigation. The Director of CBI is the head of the organisation. He supervises all the work and is responsible for the constitution of investigating teams for probing cases. This Court and the Parliament have made determined efforts to enhance the functional autonomy of CBI Director and limit the extent of executive discretion in the matter of appointment of this key functionary.
5. In the case of Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226, this Court issued directions to insulate the CBI from extraneous influence. This Court directed that there should be a selection committee to identify a panel of names for appointment of Director, CBI and thereafter the final selection is to be made by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). CBI Director would have a fixed tenure of 2 years. Said direction was issued by this Court to ensure that ad-hocism in the appointment and functioning of CBI Director is eliminated and independence is maintained.
6. Accordingly, in 2003 amendments were made to the DSEP Act following Vineet Narains case (supra). The provisions were further amended in 2013 to the DSPE Act through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act to further insulate the selection committee from government influence. The CBI Director is to be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendations of a committee comprising (a) the Prime Minister-Chairperson, (b) the Leader of Opposition (Member) and (c) the
