SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Raj) 217

[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 822 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
State of W.B. Vs. Comt. for Protection of Democratic Rights (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.
HON'BLE R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
HON'BLE D.K. JAIN, J.
HON'BLE P. SATHASIVAM, J.
HON'BLE J.M. PANCHAL, J.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Versus
The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of 2001, decided on 17.02.2010

Advocates Appeared
Tara Chandra Sharma, for Appellants;
Anip Sachthey, for Respondents

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 226, 32 read with Art. 14 & 21 and Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Sec. 6 — Can the Court direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State without the consent of the State Government? — Held — Supreme Court and High Court are empowered to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into criminal cases without the concurrence of the union or State Government — Before ordering a probe, the Courts must satisfy themselves of the need for the probe to uphold fundamental rights and the dignity of the rule of law.

       Reference answered accordingly. (Paras 44 to 46)

        Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 226] 32 lifBr vuqPNsn 14 o 21 vkSj fnYyh foks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 /kkjk 6 & D;k U;k;ky; fdlh ,sls laKs; vijk/k esa vUos"k.k djus gsrq jkT; ljdkj dh lgefr ds fcuk dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjksa dks funsZk ns ldrk gS tks ml jkT; dh {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj dfFkr :i ls gqvk gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & loksZPp U;k;ky; vkSj mPp U;k;ky; dsUnz ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj dh lgefr ds fcuk U;k;ky; dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj dh lgefr ds fcuk vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa vUos"k.k djus gsrq dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjksa ¼lhchvkbZ½ dks vknsk nsus gsrq lkDr gS & vUos"k.k gsrq vknsk nsus ls iwoZ U;k;ky;ksa dks ekSfyd vf/kdkjksa vkSj fof/k ds kklu dh egRrrk dks cgky j[kus gsrq vUos"k.k dh vko;drk ds fy;s Lo;a dk lek/kku djuk vko;d gSA ¼in la[;k 44 ls 46½

       jsQjsal dk rn~uqlkj mRrj fn;kA

Hon'ble JAIN, J.— The issue which has been referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short “the Special Police Act”), to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government.

2. For the determination of the afore-stated important legal issue, it is unnecessary to dilate on the facts obtaining in individual cases in this bunch of civil appeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions and a brief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.6249-6250 of 2001, noticed in the referral order dated 8th November, 2006, would suffice. These are:

One Abdul Rahaman Mondal (hereinafter referred to as, “the complainant”) along with a large number of workers of a political party had been staying in several camps of that party at Garbeta, District Midnapore, in the State of West Bengal. On 4.1.2001, the complainant and few others decided to return to their homes from one such camp. When they reached the complainant’s house, some miscreants, numbering 50-60, attacked them with firearms and other explosives, which resulted in a number of casualties. The complainant managed to escape from the place of occurrence, hid himself and witnessed the carnage. He lodged a written complaint with the Garbeta Police Station on 4th January, 2001 itself but the First Information Report (“the FIR” for short) for offences under Sections 148/149/448/436/364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 9 (B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 was registered only on 5th January, 2001. On 8th January, 2001, Director General of Police, West Bengal directed the C.I.D. to take over the investigations in the case. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, in public interest, inter alia, alleging that although in the said incident 11 persons had died on 4th January, 2001 and more than three months had elapsed since the incident had taken place yet except two persons, no other person named in the FIR, had been arrested; no serious attempt had been made to get the victims identified and so far the police had not been able to come to a definite conclusion whether missing persons were dead or alive. It was alleged that since the police administration in the State was under the influence of the ruling party which was trying to hide the incident to save its image, the investigations in the incident may be handed over to the CBI, an independent agency.

3. Upon consideration of the affidavit filed in opposition by the State Government, the High Court felt that in the background of the case it had strong reservations about the impartiality and fairness in the investigation by the State police because of the political fallout, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the investigation by the State Investigating Agency. Moreover, even if the investigation was conducted fairly and truthfully by the State police, it would still be viewed with suspicion because of the allegation that all the assailants were members of the ruling party. Having regard to all these circumstances, the High Court deemed it appropriate to hand over the investigation into the said incident to the CBI.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the State of West Bengal filed a petition for special leave to appeal before this Court. On 3rd September, 2001 leave was granted. When the matter came up for hearing before a two-Judge Bench on 8th November, 2006, taking note of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the partie





































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top