2010 (I) OLR (SC) — 584
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J. AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, D.K. JAIN, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors.... Appellant(s)
Versus
The Committee For Protection Of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.... Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of 2001
With
W.P. (CRL.) 24 of 2008,
SLP (CRL.) No. 4096 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No.573 of 2006
Decided on 17th February, 2010.
2. SPECIAL POLICE ACT - Secs. 5 and 6 - Sec. 5(1) empowers the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to any area in a State - Section 6 imposes a restriction on the power of the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the said establishment only with the consent of the State Government concerned - Whether the restriction imposed on the powers of the Central Government would apply mutatis mutandis to the Constitutional Courts as well ? - The power of judicial review stands entirely on a different pedestal - Power of the High Court and Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or even abridged. (Paras - 22 to 32)
3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 21, 32 and 226 - Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Art. 21 in particular, zealously and vigilantly - This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. (Paras - 45 to 47)
4. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 32, 226 and 13 - Power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts is an integral part and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure - Power of the High Court and Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or even abridged - Art. 13 of the Constitution not only declares the pre-constitution laws as void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, it also prohibits the State from making a law which either takes away totally or abrogated in part a fundamental right - Judicial review of laws is embedded in the Constitution by virtue of Art. 13 read with Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. (Para - 32)
5. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 32, 142 and 144 - Duty of Supreme Court to ensure that no fundamental right is contravened or abridged by any statutory or constitutional provision - Power conferred by the said clause is in the widest terms and is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs specified in the said clause but includes within its ambit the power to issue any directions or orders or writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the fundamental rights - Arts. 32 and 142 which empower Supreme Court to issue such directions as may be necessary for doing justice in any cause or matter - Article 144 also mandates all authorities, civil or judicial in the territory of India, to act in aid of the orders by Supreme Court. (Paras - 32 to 34)
JUDGMENT
D.K. JAIN, J. — 1. 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 4th January, 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
1.1970 (1) SCC 633 : The Management v. Shri Gurudasmai...4
4.(1977) 3 SCC 592 : State of Rajasthan v. Union...10
6.(2006) 7 SCC 1 : Kuldip v. Union...10
8.(1980) 3 SCC 625 : Minerva v. Union...11
9.(1981) 1 SCC 568 : Fertilizer v. Union...11
12.(1965) 3 SCR 536 : Dwarkanath v. Income-tax...11
13.(1998) 1 SCC 226 : Vineet v. Union...19
14.(2007) 3 SCC 184 : Raja v. Honble...25
15.(1973) 4 SCC 225 : Holiness v. State of Kerala...26
17.(2007) 6 SCC 586 : State of U.P. v. Jeet...27
20.(2006) 8 SCC 212 : M.Nagaraj v. Union...30
21.(1984) 3 SCC 161 : Bandhua v. Union...32
23.(1981) 2 SCC 493 : Khatri v. State of Bihar...33
25.(1964) 1 SCR 332 : Kharak v. State of U.P....36
3.(1998) 4 SCC 409 : Supreme Court v. Union...8
5.(1994) 3 SCC 1 : S.R.Bommai v. Union...10
7.(2007) 2 SCC 1 : I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N....11
10.(1993) 2 SCC 746 : Nilabati v. State...11
11.1997 (I) OLR (SC) 408 : (1997) 3 SCC 261 :
18.(1989) 1 SCC 204 : Kehar v. Union...29
22.(1981) 1 SCC 627 : Khatri v. State of Bihar...33
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.