The central legal point established in the judgment is the rare and exceptional circumstances under which CBI investigation can be ordered, the lack of confidence in the investigating agency, and the necessity for serious concern or public interest for third-party intervention in criminal judicial processes.

1. The 4th respondent herein is a former Finance Minister. He has been facing a third round of investigation in a crime registered by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) alleging misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The writ petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus directing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The first round of investigation ended with a report in favour of the 4th respondent that there is no scope to prosecute him because sufficient materials to prove the alleged offence could not be collected during investigation. The court below did not accept the report, and directed the VACB to conduct a further investigation. Accordingly, a second round of investigation went on as further investigation, but that also ended in favour of the 4th respondent. The first report was objected by many persons including the writ petitioner herein. Anyway, while the second report was being considered by the court below, the VACB suo motu decided to make another round of further investigation, and it is now going on. The trial court has not so far taken decision on the said report, because the VACB by the time suo motu proceeded for a third round of investigation.

2. First let me see whether the petitioner has any locus standi to bring a writ petition like this seeking investigation by the C.B.I in a matter where a third round of investigation is now going on at the hands of the VACB. The petitioner claims to be a social activist. That apart, he cannot have any interest, and he does not project any interest. Of course, it is true that in appropriate cases where a third party is aggrieved, he can move the Constitutional Court for investigation by an effective agency. But a third party can seek relief from the Constitutional Courts by way of writ of mandamus or otherwise, only if he has some interest or concern in the investigation. By order dated 19.1.2017, this Court had directed the writ petitioner to convince the court how the writ petition is maintainable, or what exactly is his locus standi to file a writ petition as a third party, or how he is entitled to seek a writ of mandamus for C.B.I investigation in a crime, which is under investigation by the VACB.

3. The 4th respondent has filed statement of objection that the petitioner has brought this writ petition for personal and political ends. Of course, this is controverted by the writ petitioner in his reply affidavit. However, on a close examination of the materials including the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, I find something suspicious in the concern expressed and projected by the writ petitioner. I find reason to believe that he has his own personal or political reason to seek a writ for CBI investigation. Judicial floor cannot in any circumstance be allowed to be used for personal or political ends. When a third party intrudes into the criminal judicial process, and seeks a direction for effective investigation by the CBI or some other agency of his choice, the person who seeks relief must have some interest in the case and also some concern in the matter. Here, I find nothing of that sort, and at the same time, I find something to suspect regarding the bona fide of the writ petitioner.

4. Anyway, let me see whether there is any reason or ground for ordering investigation by the C.B.I in this case. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that C.B.I investigation cannot be mechanically ordered by the Constitutional Courts. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others [2008 (1) KLT 724], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such request will have to be discouraged when alternative remedy is possible under the law. Here, a second round of further investigation is going on, and the report is yet to come. When such a report comes, the trial court will have to decide on the report. As a person who had interven