Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, described as a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Petitioner No.1) and Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari (Petitioner No.2) praying for the following reliefs:

“(A) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, for a court monitored investigation by constituting a multi-disciplinary SIT consisting of Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, RAW, Delhi Police and headed by CBI in the murder case of Late Sunanda Pushkar.

(B) In the alternative to prayer ‘A’ above, call for a time bound CBI investigation and

(C) Pass any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Although notice was not formally issued in this petition even on the first date of its hearing, i.e. 12th July 2017, counsel appeared on behalf of all three respondents, i.e. Delhi Police (Respondent No.1), Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) (Respondent No.2) and Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) (Respondent No.3).

3. The principal grievance in this petition is that the investigation by Respondent No.1, Delhi Police, into the death of the late Ms. Sunanda Puskhar which took place in New Delhi on 17th January 2014 is being unreasonably delayed and that it is an “extreme example of the slow-motion of the criminal justice process and the extent to which it can be subverted.”

4. The petition is replete with broad and sweeping allegations. One sample is in para 9 (N) which reads as under:

“Nine months after she was found mysteriously dead in a hotel room, the Delhi Police woke up to find that some of the personnel belongings (clothes, footwear, handbag) of Sunanda Pushkar have been missing all this while. This clearly shows a botched investigation, done at the behest of rich and influential.” (emphasis in the original)

5. Then there are allegations against named individuals. In para 10 it is averred that:

“That inordinate delay and deliberate attempts made by Dr. Tharoor to mislead the investigation in the matter can be made more clear from the list of events above mentioned as it indicates that...”

6. Again in para 10 (vii) it is averred as under:

“The HOD of the forensic department was under a tremendous pressure of Director of AIIMS, Dr. Tharoor and Gulam Nabi Azad to give autopsy report as natural death and clean chit as communicated by Dr. Gupta.”

7. In Ground A it is contended:

“Because the incident took place on January 17, 2014 and till May 26, 2014 Dr. Shashi Tharoor was a Minister in the UPA government having a great influence in the system, he thereafter made attempts to influence the Government to hush up the murder case of Late Sunanda Pushkar, and remains even today in continuous interference in the police investigation.”

8. Despite the above grave allegations against named persons, the Petitioners have not thought it fit to arraign them as Respondents. There is no valid explanation offered for the failure to do so. But the non-joinder of necessary parties is only one of the problems with this petition.

9. Dr. Swamy, who appears in person, informed the Court that he is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party which, he was candid to admit, is not stated anywhere in the petition. He was also candid in saying that the persons named above are members of the Indian National Congress which, again, he has not disclosed anywhere in the petition. Since the foundation of the petition concerns the alleged conduct of the named persons, and considering that this petition is projected as a PIL, the failure to disclose a material fact is a serious omission which cannot be easily condoned.

10. The third issue concerns the failure to disclose the complete facts. Nothing has been placed on record to probablise, let alone substantiate, the vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Dr. Swamy was asked whether he had any basis for alleging that the investigation was “botched”