Back
Transfers Corruption Probe Against Senior State Officials To CBI
The court found the state police's
to be a
"journey with all travel and no reaching"
and directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate allegations of cash-for-transfers, tender rigging, and policy manipulation involving high-ranking Punjab officers.
A of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor delivered a significant judgment on , in a filed by advocate . The court ordered the transfer of investigation to the , expressing serious concern over the 's failure to register a despite receiving detailed incriminating material from the under .
A Whistleblower's Fight Against Inaction
The petition, filed by Saraf—a practicing advocate and member of the Bar Association—alleged that senior state officials were involved in a nexus of corruption including cash-for-transfers, cash for favourable policies, and cash for tenders. The crux of the grievance was that the ED had shared voluminous evidence with the , including WhatsApp chats and financial records, implicating officers, including an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Chief Minister, yet no FIR was registered. The petitioner contended that the state was deliberately shielding its officers and that the time gained was being used to destroy evidence.
The court noted that the ED had sent letters on
,
, and
, but the
did not respond. A
was initiated by the
, which the court later found to be
"all travel and no reaching."
The State's Objections and the Court's Verdict on Maintainability
The vehemently opposed the PIL on multiple grounds, primarily questioning Saraf's credentials and . The state argued that Saraf was a "stranger" seeking to meddle in a criminal cause, that he had selective disclosure of his litigation history, and that he had an undisclosed commercial interest (a farm stay) against which action was already underway, suggesting a personal motive. The state also submitted that the proper remedy lay with the ED approaching a magistrate or with the petitioner filing a complaint.
The court, however, rejected these objections. It found that Saraf had sufficiently established his credentials as a public-spirited person, having filed several PILs over seven years on governance and police reforms. The court observed that the mere fact that two of his earlier PILs were not entertained did not disqualify him. On the demolition notice issue, the court noted the "undue hot-haste" with which the proceeded soon after the PIL was filed, calling it "unnatural" and suggestive of an attempt to silence the whistleblower.
"A Journey With All Travel and No Reaching"
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the note submitted by the outlining the steps taken since receiving the ED's communication on . The note showed a series of meetings, discussions, and issuance of notices to various individuals, but no FIR was registered even after two months.
The judgment sharply criticized the PBI's approach, stating:
"The information shared by ED with
has led to a journey with all travel and no reaching."
The court pointed out contradictions: the PBI claimed the documents were illegible and demanded legible copies on
, yet it had already issued notices to persons named in those very documents days earlier. The court also highlighted that the OSD to the Chief Minister, a key figure in the allegations, was never even associated with the
.
The court held that the material shared by the ED disclosed the commission of , and under the law laid down in , the police were obligated to register an FIR. The conducted was a mere pretence, and the delay appeared designed to allow evidence manipulation.
Demolition Notice: A Clear Case of Victimization?
A significant portion of the judgment dealt with the demolition notice issued to Saraf's farm stay soon after the PIL was filed. The court noted that a had been issued in , to which Saraf had responded, and the matter had been dropped. Almost two years later, on , a was passed without even serving a copy. The court observed:
"The fact that a
came to be passed against the petitioner soon after filing of the present petition appears unnatural... it is after expiry of a year and ten months that a
is passed, without serving copy of the
, immediately after filing of the present PIL which is suggestive of
."
"Though, we are not expressing any definite opinion on the legality of petitioner's construction but the manner in which action of demolition has followed soon after issuance of notice in this matter does create doubt regarding intent of high-ranking State officers against whom petitioner has highlighted corruption based on information shared by ED with
."
The court acknowledged the intervention of the Bar Association and its own late-night hearing that prevented the demolition.
Court Orders CBI Investigation
Concluding that a fair and transparent investigation was impossible under the state machinery, the court directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate all aspects of the allegations, including the roles of the named officers and the destruction of any evidence. The and the were directed to render all assistance. The court ordered the CBI to submit a status report within two months, with the matter listed for .
This judgment reinforces the High Court's power to intervene when state investigative agencies are perceived to be acting in a dilatory or partisan manner, especially in matters of high public interest involving systemic corruption.
