The court's decision was influenced by the findings of the Preliminary Enquiry Report, which determined that the allegations of irregularities in the processing of the Scorpene deal were not established.

1. This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation was filed on 26.04.2006 with the following prayers:

“(a) order a thorough court monitored investigation by the CBI or by a Special Investigation Group, constituted by this Hon’ble Court, in the involvement of unauthorized middlemen/commission agents in the Scorpene submarine procurement deal and payment of commission/bribes, and if such allegations are found correct, pass further consequential and necessary directions, including prosecution of the persons found involved;

(b) direct the Respondents to identify the officials guilty of serious dereliction of duty in not taking timely and appropriate action to check the involvement of middlemen/commission agents and payment of commission/bribes in the Scorpene deal despite knowledge and to take appropriate disciplinary and penal action against them;”

2. On the basis of certain investigative reports published in weekly news magazine “Outlook” in its edition of 20.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, it is alleged in the writ petition that the agreement by respondent No.1 and 2 with the French Government and Thales (a French Company) on 07.10.2005 to procure the Scorpene submarines is actuated with mala fides and extraneous considerations and that the same needs to be thoroughly investigated.

3. The allegations in the petition included that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 went ahead with the deal despite having knowledge about the involvement of middlemen as pointed out by the Central Vigilance Commission and the CVO of Ministry of Defence way back in 2002; though CVC in its report had informed the respondent No.1 that one of the companies involved in the deal, namely, DCNI (the manufacturer of Scorpene submarines) was blacklisted by the CVO of Ministry of Defence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 went ahead and signed the deal; four months after the signing of the deal, though it was exposed by a respectable news magazine about the involvement of the middlemen and payment of huge commission/bribes, the respondent No.1 failed to take any steps to review the deal and order an investigation but merely ordered an inquiry by CBI against some of the Naval Officers into the issue of the leak of classified information of the Navy which led to the exposure of the involvement of the middlemen in the Scorpene deal.

4. It is pleaded in the writ petition that for ascertaining and gathering all facts into the alleged high-level corruption in the Defence deals, the intervention by this court is essential to order a complete investigation under its direct supervision by CBI or any other independent investigating agency.

5. On 06.12.2006, a status report with regard to the investigation conducted by CBI into the allegation of “Navy War Room Leak” was filed in a sealed cover by the learned ASG appearing fro the respondents. On 17.12.2007, it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned ASG that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner dated 03.03.2006 (filed in this petition as Annexure-P23), CBI had instituted a Preliminary Enquiry.

6. Thereafter on 25.07.2008, a copy of the report of the Preliminary Enquiry by CBI was filed in this court in two sealed covers.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to furnish a copy of the said report to him, it is opposed by the learned counsel for the CBI claiming privilege on the ground that it has received replies from the National Central Bureau of United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland with the condition that the information supplied by them should not be shared by private parties.

8. Having perused the Preliminary Enquiry Report, we are of the view that there is substance in the objection raised by the respondents for furnishing a copy of the Preliminary Enquiry Report to the petitioner. Hence, the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to furnish a copy of the report cannot be acceded to.

9. We have carefully gone through the Preliminary Enquiry Report. We found that i