M. C. MEHTA (TAJ CORRIDOR SCAM) vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 1194

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.
M.C. MEHTA (TAJ CORRIDOR SCAM) - Petitioner;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Respondents.
IA No. 431 in WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984 with IA No. 451, IAs Nos. 438 - 39, 442 - 43,445 and 447 in IA No. 431, IA No. 440 and IA No. 441 in IA No. 440 in WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984
Decided on November 27,2006
Advocates appeared
Ghoolam E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, S.M.A. Kazmi, Advocate General, Ajay Siwach, Additional Advocate General, KK Venugopal, S.C. Mishra, R.K Jain and M.N. Rao, Senior Advocates, Krishan Mahajan (Amicus Curiae) (M.C. Mehta, Ms Shilpa Chohan, Jitendra Chaudhary, Ms Lalita Kaushik, P.K Chakravarti, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G.Y. Rao, Nakul Dubey, Rakesh K Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Surya Kant, S.B. Upadhyay, Shiraj C. Patodia, A.D.N. Rao, U.S. Prasad, Atishi Dipankar, Nikhil Nayyar, P. Parameswaran, Vijay Panjwani, Pradeep Mishra, Ankit Singhal, B.Y. Balramdas, Ashok K. Srivastava, Saurabh Trivedi, Manjeet Singh, T.Y. George, Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ms Binu Tamta, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Kumar Mishra, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Ms Rashmi Singh, KK Mohan, Vishwajit Singh, Ms Anil Katiyar, Ms Mridula Ray Bhardwaj and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates) for the appearing parties and Ajay K Aggarwal, Applicant/Petitioner - In - Person

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(2), 154, 157 r/w Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Sections 3 and 4-CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 - CBI investigation in Taj Heritage Case - Powers and functions of hierarchy in CBI Case monitored by Supreme Court-In Supreme Court monitored cases the Supreme Court is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by CBI and not with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the tiling of the charge - sheet in the competent Court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law - In the present case, the entire investigating team as well as the law officers are ad idem in their mind-There being no difference of opinion in the concerned team, the question of seeking opinion of the Attorney General did not arise-CBI was required to follow the procedure given in Cr.P.C.-The result of investigation by the Police is not legal evidence-Entire material collected by CBI along with report of the S.P. directed to be placed before the concerned Court i.e. Special Judge in terms of Sec. 173(2) Cr. P. C, (Para 32)
       Constitution of India-Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to take aid and assistance of any Authority for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it-In the present case, to vet and analyse the voluminous records placed by the Cal, the Supreme Court directed CVC to give its recommendations after analysing the materials-In the facts and circumstances of the case, the statute report submitted by cal rejected. (Para 33)
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 and 157 and Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Sections 2 and 3 r/w CBI Manual, 2005-Cal investigation-Cal Manual is subject to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and in case of conflict, the Cr.P.C. shall prevail-Investigation of an offence is the exclusive field of police-It may be subject to supervision of higher ranking officer but ultimate control is of the Court. (Para 44)
       1955(1) SCR 1150, 1967 (3) SCR 668, (1996) 6 SCC 500, (1997) 4 SCC 770, (1996) 2 SCC 199, (1998) 1 SCC 226, (2003) 6 SCC 195, (1991)3 SCC 655, (1997) 6 SCC 185, (2000)4 SCC 459, (1980) 1 SCC 554, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (1987) 1 SCC 288, (1970) 1 SCC 653, (2001) 7 SCC 536-Referred to.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Investigation is an exclusive field of the police, subject only to supervision by higher-ranking officers, but the ultimate control lies with the Court. The formation of the opinion regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to place an accused on trial is the final step in investigation and must be taken solely by the officer in charge of the police station (SP), not delegated to others. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
The result of an investigation is not legal evidence. Only the evidence adduced during the trial can form the basis of a conviction; the police report under Section 173 CrPC is merely an intimation to the Magistrate. (!) (!) (!) (!)
In Supreme Court monitored cases, the Court's concern is ensuring the proper and honest performance of duty by the CBI, not the merits of the accusations, which are determined at the trial. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
No difference of opinion existed in the CBI team. The entire investigating team and law officers (except the Director of Prosecution) were ad idem in recommending prosecution. Consequently, the Director, CBI was not justified in referring the matter to the Attorney General for India, as there was no genuine difference of opinion requiring such a reference. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The Director of Prosecution's dissent was not binding. The opinion of the Director of Prosecution regarding the filing of a closure report was based on the interpretation of legal evidence, a stage that had not yet arrived. The Senior Public Prosecutor is not a member of the administrative hierarchy under the CBI Manual and his opinion was not legally required. (!) (!) (!)
The Supreme Court rejected the status report dated 31-12-2004. It was deemed a "charade" because the Director, CBI relied solely on the Attorney General's opinion without forming an independent view, and the internal dissent was not properly addressed according to the law. (!)
Direction to the CBI. The Court directed the CBI to place the entire material collected along with the report of the SP (and no other opinions/recommendations) before the competent Court/Special Judge in terms of Section 173(2) CrPC for them to decide whether to take cognizance. (!) (!) (!)
Role of CVC. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) acts as an authority to aid the Supreme Court under Article 142 to vet and analyze voluminous records, but its advice is in the nature of an opinion and not a binding direction. (!) (!) (!)
CBI Manual vs. CrPC. The CBI (Crime) Manual is subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC); in case of conflict, the CrPC shall prevail. (!) (!)

Judgment

S.H. KAPADIA, J. (for himself and D.K. Jain, J.) - Delay condoned in IA No. 443 in IA No. 431 in WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984.

2. A purported vertical difference of opinion in the administrative hierarchy in CBI between the team of investigating officers and the law officers on one hand and the Director of Prosecution on the other hand on the question as to whether there exists adequate evidence for judicial scrutiny in the case of criminal misconduct concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor Project involving 12 accused including a former Chief Minister has resulted in the legal stalemate which warrants interpretation of Section 173(2) CrPC. Background facts

3. On 25 - 3 - 2003, the Uttar Pradesh Government started a project known as Taj Heritage Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") to divert the Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres between Agra Fort and the Taj and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities in terms of development of a Heritage Corridor for Taj Trapezium Zone (hereinafter referred to as "TTZ") at Agra. This led to the filing of IA No. 387 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13381 of 1984 pending in this Court. Vide order dated 16 - 7 - 20031 this Court observed that it was painful that the persons concerned in power were trying to damage or endanger the world heritage by their hasty/irregular/illegal activities. By the said order, this Court directed a detailed inquiry as to who cleared the Project, for what purpose it was cleared, and why it was cleared without the sanction of the competent authority. This Court also inquired as to whether their exists any illegality or irregularity and, if so, this Court called for the names of the officers/persons concerned. Accordingly, by the said order a CBI inquiry was ordered. A report on the preliminary inquiry was called for from CBI within four weeks.

4. By order dated 21 - 8 - 20032 in IA No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 this Court ordered CBI to verify from the assets of the officers/persons as to whether there was any flow of funds into their accounts from the State exchequer. This order was passed on the basis of the confidential report submitted by CBI to this Court under which it was reported that a sum of Rs 17 crores was released from the State exchequer without proper sanction of the competent authority.

5. By order dated 18 - 9 - 20033 in IA No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 this Court after reciting the above facts noted (at SCC p. 702, para 9) the contents of the report submitted by CBI on 11 - 9 - 2003, which report recorded the following conclusions:

"15. An amount of Rs 17 crores was unauthorisedly released by Shri R.K. Sharma, Secretary, Environment, V.P. without the approval of the departmental Minister. (Ref. para 3.1.E.4, p. 64 and para 3.1.E.31, p. 81.)

16. Contrary to the provisions existing in the State Government which require that in case of every non - recurring expenditure of Rs 5 crores and above, approval of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government is required, no such approval was either sought or obtained before sanctioning the amount of Rs 17 crores. (Ref. para 3.1.E.11, p. 67.)

17. An amount of Rs 20 crores was sanctioned by Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of Environment, V.P. for release without approval of DPRs and techno - feasibility reports and without clearance of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government and CCEA, Government of India. (Ref. para 3.1.E.39, p. 86.)

18. Shri Siddiqui subsequently tampered with the file and made interpolations in the government records with an objective to cover up the fact that he had sanctioned Rs 20 crores on 21 - 5 - 2003. [Ref. para 3.1.E.40 (1 and 2), p. 87.]

19. Shri Siddiqui and Dr. Y.K Gupta, the present Secretary, Environment, U.P. pressurised Shri Rajendra Prasad, Under - Secretary, Environment Department, U.P. who also tampered with the file and made in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1194

Cases Referred (20)