Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
NISHITA MHATRE, TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, JJ.
Brajesh Jha & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
CAN Nos. 11807 & 10500 of 2016, CAN No. 114 of 2017 & WP Nos. 5175 & 5224 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2017
The High Court of Calcutta, in a case involving allegations of corruption against several high-ranking officials and politicians in West Bengal, held that a preliminary inquiry should be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ascertain whether cognizable offenses had been committed. The Court found that the video footage of the alleged acts of corruption was genuine and that the State Police would be unable to conduct an impartial investigation due to the influence of the accused. The Court also directed the State to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a police officer involved in the alleged corruption.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, practicing advocates, filed writ petitions alleging that several Respondents, including Ministers of the Government of West Bengal, Members of Parliament, and a Superintendent of Police, had indulged in corrupt practices by accepting bribes in exchange for promising favors. The Petitioners relied on news telecasts and newspaper reports of a "sting operation" conducted by Respondent No. 10, which allegedly captured the Respondents accepting cash. The Respondents opposed the petitions, arguing that they were not maintainable, that no cognizable offense had been disclosed, and that the High Court should not order an inquiry or investigation by the CBI.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitions were maintainable, that the Petitioners had locus standi to file the petitions, and that a cognizable offense had been disclosed. The Court held that the video footage of the alleged acts of corruption was genuine and that the State Police would be unable to conduct an impartial investigation due to the influence of the accused. The Court also found that the CBI was the appropriate agency to conduct the preliminary inquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitions were maintainable. 2. Whether a cognizable offense had been disclosed. 3. Whether the High Court should order an inquiry or investigation by the CBI.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable because the Petitioners had locus standi to file the petitions, the petitions disclosed a cognizable offense, and the public interest was involved. 2. The Court held that a cognizable offense had been disclosed because the video footage of the alleged acts of corruption was genuine and showed the Respondents accepting cash in exchange for promising favors. 3. The Court held that the High Court should order an inquiry or investigation by the CBI because the State Police would be unable to conduct an impartial investigation due to the influence of the accused and because the CBI was the appropriate agency to conduct the preliminary inquiry.
Final Decision: The Court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offenses had been committed by the Respondents. The Court also directed the State to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the police officer involved in the alleged corruption.
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. An extremely disturbing and alarming issue has arisen before us regarding alleged acts of corruption committed by persons who hold high public offices in the State of West Bengal. It is disquieting and deplorable to say the least. If the allegations are true such persons have no business to continue in the positions they hold today either as elected representatives of the people of West Bengal or as Ministers of the Government of West Bengal or in employment as a senior officer in the State’s Police force. If the accusations are false, it is worrisome that the reputation of these individuals has been sullied by a person who claims to be a journalist and has published audio-video footage depicting these alleged acts; and, by others, who claiming to be public spirited citizens have filed these public interest litigations on viewing that footage.
2. The Petitioners in WP 5243(W) of 2016 and WP 5175(W) of 2016 and the second Petitioner in WP 5224(W) of 2016 are all practicing advocates. The first Petitioner in WP 5224(W) of 2016 is a businessman and the General Secretary of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee. As the issues involved in these petitions are the same, we have heard them together. All the petitions are directed against the State, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the State Police. The persons against whom allegations of indulging in corrupt practices have been made have been impleaded as Respondents in WP 5243(W) of 2016. For the sake of convenience I will refer to the Respondents as impleaded in WP 5243(W) of 2016 (Brajesh Jha vs. Union of India).
3. The Petitioners have pleaded that on 14th March, 2016 they watched a news telecast in which the Respondents Nos.11 to 22 (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents”) were seen receiving illegal gratification for promising and assuring a representative of an unknown company to assist it in improving its business, using their positions and the high offices they occupied. According to the Petitioners, they noticed these audio-visuals on all news channels in the electronic media, which proclaimed them as a part of a “sting operation” conducted by Respondent No.10. The Petitioners claimed that this news was published in the print media on the next day, that is, on 15th March, 2016. They have further mentioned that Respondent Nos.11 to 21, who are all members of the All India Trinamul Congress (hereinafter referred to as “TMC”) and are either Ministers of the Government of West Bengal or Members of Parliament or the State Legislature and Respondent 22, Commandant, Special Striking Force, Barrackpore, an officer of the West Bengal Police, had indulged in criminal activities “to cheat the faith of public and commit criminal breach of trust in respect of public money and thus misappropriated huge amount in utter breach of trust, faith and confidence reposed upon them causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to public”. The Petitioners have stated that they filed a complaint in the Shyampukur Police Station, Kolkata on 15th March, 2016. They then submitted the complaint by mail to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) and Enforcement Directorate (hereafter referred to as “ED”), so that appropriate steps could be taken against the Respondent Nos.11 to 22 in accordance with law. According to the Petitioners, the State Police would not investigate the alleged offences impartially because of the extraneous influence which could be exerted on them. The Petitioners contended that the Respondents have committed offences punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 besides offences under the Indian Penal Code and other similar statues. The Petitioners have prayed that the Court should direct the CBI and the ED to investigate the activities of Respondent Nos.11 to 22 which were telecast on the news channels on 14th March, 2016. They have also prayed
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
