# SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2015] 12 S.C.R. 498
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-10-13
- **Bench:** H.L. Dattu, Arun Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sanjiv-rajendra-bhatt-v-union-of-india-ors-30452
- **Pages:** 66

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 32 - Entrustment of
c investigation to SIT - FIR by KD u/ss. 189, 193, 195, 341
and 342 /PC against the petitioner-/ PS officer that he made
false averments and filed false affidavit - Registration of/-
CR on basis thereof- FIR also lodged by then AAG of the
State of Gujarat uls. 66 of the Information Technology Act
D regarding hacking of his e-mail account and tampering of
the same by the petitioner- Registration of II-CR on the basis
thereof - Writ petitions by petitioner seeking transfer of
investigation to CBI or SIT(Special Investigation Team)
outside control of CM of Gujarat -Allegations by petitioner
·E
as to involvement of the then Chief Minister of the State of
Gujarat in riots of 2002; that he was present in the meeting
convened by the Chief Minister on the night of 27.02.2002
. and the FIR was a counter blast to the action taken by the
petitioner; and that a complaint filed by JJ in 2006, pertaining
F to 2002 riots was ordered to be looked into by SIT by this
Court- Held: Petitioner did not come to this Court with clean
hands-He kept quite for a period of9 years as to the factum
of meeting dated 27. 02. 2002 - No case made out for
G investigation by SIT relating to preparation of affidavit or
hacking of e-mail account and tampering with it -Allegation
that the SIT had been leaking very sensitive and confidential
details pertaining to the ongoing investigation to the then AAG
of Gujarat, totally false and baseless-A/so no case is made
H out of criminal conspiracy - It does not appear that the e498
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA
499
mail exchange between the then AAG and oiher functionaries A
tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial.
interference in any other manner in due course of justice -
Further, not a case of scandalizing the court or in any manner
affecting fair decision of the court or tending to bring the court
into disrepute or disrespect which tantamount to criminal . B
contempt- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(c)(iil).
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner has not come to this Court c
with clean hands. The petitioner kept quiet for a period
of 9 years as to the factum of the meeting. Then he was
exchanging e-mails for ascertaining the time and
presence of the persons at Ahmedabad. In case he was
present in the meeting it was not required .of him to o
ascertain those facts. Petitioner did not state fact of the
meeting in statement recorded by SIT in 2009. The
explanation offered by the petitioner for said omission
that his statement was recorded in the year 2011 before
SIT under section 161 Cr.P.C. as such he made all E
disclosures. The SIT was same, having same powers all
the time. Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus, the
explanation of the petitioner does not appear to be prima
facie credible. [Para 45) [540-H; 541-A-C)
1.2 As per averments made by the petitioner, he
accessed the e-mails of the then AAG in the years 2009
and 2010. In case these e-mails were in his possession,
it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to disclose them
F
at t~e relevant time in appropriate proceedings at an G
appropriate stage but he did not do so. Apart from that
when the petitioner's statement was recorded by SIT in
March, 2011, it was his bounden duty to hand over e-
. mails to the SIT and it was also incumbent upon him to
mention the same in the unsolicited affidavit dated . H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A 14.4.2011 which he had filed in Jakia Jafri's case but he
kept silent as to the e-mails in the said affidavit. When he
made such sensational disclosures after 9 years, what
prevented him from not disclosing the e-mails and
keeping quiet is inexplicable conduct. In the statement
B before Justice Nanavati Commission also petitioner
failed to state about the e-mails. When he has sent theemails to the effect that his potential was not fully exploited
by rival political party, what prevented him from stating
abou

## Text

_Characters 0–39,842 of 125,708. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39842 for what follows._

A
B
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 498
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No.135 of 2011)
OCTOBER 13, 2015
[H.L. DATTU, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 32 - Entrustment of
c investigation to SIT - FIR by KD u/ss. 189, 193, 195, 341
and 342 /PC against the petitioner-/ PS officer that he made
false averments and filed false affidavit - Registration of/-
CR on basis thereof- FIR also lodged by then AAG of the
State of Gujarat uls. 66 of the Information Technology Act
D regarding hacking of his e-mail account and tampering of
the same by the petitioner- Registration of II-CR on the basis
thereof - Writ petitions by petitioner seeking transfer of
investigation to CBI or SIT(Special Investigation Team)
outside control of CM of Gujarat -Allegations by petitioner
·E
as to involvement of the then Chief Minister of the State of
Gujarat in riots of 2002; that he was present in the meeting
convened by the Chief Minister on the night of 27.02.2002
. and the FIR was a counter blast to the action taken by the
petitioner; and that a complaint filed by JJ in 2006, pertaining
F to 2002 riots was ordered to be looked into by SIT by this
Court- Held: Petitioner did not come to this Court with clean
hands-He kept quite for a period of9 years as to the factum
of meeting dated 27. 02. 2002 - No case made out for
G investigation by SIT relating to preparation of affidavit or
hacking of e-mail account and tampering with it -Allegation
that the SIT had been leaking very sensitive and confidential
details pertaining to the ongoing investigation to the then AAG
of Gujarat, totally false and baseless-A/so no case is made
H out of criminal conspiracy - It does not appear that the e498
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA
499
mail exchange between the then AAG and oiher functionaries A
tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial.
interference in any other manner in due course of justice -
Further, not a case of scandalizing the court or in any manner
affecting fair decision of the court or tending to bring the court
into disrepute or disrespect which tantamount to criminal . B
contempt- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(c)(iil).
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner has not come to this Court c
with clean hands. The petitioner kept quiet for a period
of 9 years as to the factum of the meeting. Then he was
exchanging e-mails for ascertaining the time and
presence of the persons at Ahmedabad. In case he was
present in the meeting it was not required .of him to o
ascertain those facts. Petitioner did not state fact of the
meeting in statement recorded by SIT in 2009. The
explanation offered by the petitioner for said omission
that his statement was recorded in the year 2011 before
SIT under section 161 Cr.P.C. as such he made all E
disclosures. The SIT was same, having same powers all
the time. Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus, the
explanation of the petitioner does not appear to be prima
facie credible. [Para 45) [540-H; 541-A-C)
1.2 As per averments made by the petitioner, he
accessed the e-mails of the then AAG in the years 2009
and 2010. In case these e-mails were in his possession,
it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to disclose them
F
at t~e relevant time in appropriate proceedings at an G
appropriate stage but he did not do so. Apart from that
when the petitioner's statement was recorded by SIT in
March, 2011, it was his bounden duty to hand over e-
. mails to the SIT and it was also incumbent upon him to
mention the same in the unsolicited affidavit dated . H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A 14.4.2011 which he had filed in Jakia Jafri's case but he
kept silent as to the e-mails in the said affidavit. When he
made such sensational disclosures after 9 years, what
prevented him from not disclosing the e-mails and
keeping quiet is inexplicable conduct. In the statement
B before Justice Nanavati Commission also petitioner
failed to state about the e-mails. When he has sent theemails to the effect that his potential was not fully exploited
by rival political party, what prevented him from stating
about the e-mails before Justice Nanavati Commission
C also is not understandable. The counsel for tile petitioner
in response to the query made by the court why the
petitioner kept quiet as to e-mails on said occasions,
fairly and rightly conceded that it was the duty of the
0
petitioner to state on the said occasions as to the e-mails
but their explanation that petitioner was ultimately
pushed to the wall by registering a criminal case at the
behest of KD then he disclosed the e-mails, is also not
acceptable as the petitioner's statement before Justice
E Nanavati Commission continued even after the date of
registration of offence. The said explanation does not
appear to be sound one. The petitioner filed the e-mails
first time in this Court along with affidavit dated 29.7 .2011.
This was around the time when the report as to hacking
F of e-mail account and tampering with the e-mails was
filed by the then AAG against the petitioner. The
questions of delay and explanation are ultimately to be
gone into finally in criminal case II-CR. No.3148/2011,
without meaning to decide in present proceedings, the
G overall conduct of the petitioner does not inspire
confidence. [Para 47] [542-G-H; 543-A-G]
1.3 The scope of inquiry in the case I-CR. No.149/
2011 on the basis of the complaint lodged by KD is
H whether his affidavit was obtained by the petitioner
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION 0F INDIA
501
under coercion and in the circumstances narrated by A
him in the First Information Report. Whether the petitioner
was present in the meeting dated 27.2.2002 and what
transpired in that meeting, is not the issue within the
ambit and scope of I-CR. No.149/20.11-. It is simply a case
in which question has to be gone into whether the . B
affidavit dated 17.6.2011 was obtained by the petitioner
in the circumstances alleged by KD and after taking him
to political luminaries of rival party and whether they
were involved in preparation/drafting of the same.
Similarly in the case of hacking of e-mail account also C
the said question cannot be said to be open for
investigation at all considering the scope of the
complaint lodged by the then AAG. [Para 48)(544-B-E]
1.4 The SIT in its report submitted to the trial court D
came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner
that he was present on 27.2.2002 in meeting held at the
residence of the then Chief Minister is not correct. The
SIT made the investigation into the said aspect and SIT
in its counter affidavit also clearly stated that it was found E
after investigation that the petitioner was not present in
the meeting dated 27.2.2002. Thus, with respect to the
investigation into the said aspect, the matter stands
concluded as to the petitioner's presence in the meeting F
dated 27 .2.2002. That investigation had been made by
the SIT appointed by this Court and there is absolutely
no basis now to order constitution of a fresh SIT to look
into the said aspect. [Para 50] [545-H; 546-A-C]
1.5 The allegation that the SIT had been leaking very G •
sensitive and confidential details pertaining to the
ongoing investigation to the then AA<3 of Gujarat, is
totally false and baseless. Two e-mails referred to by the
petitioner were sent by GZ, IPS, Additional DG of Police,
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A and the then Convener of SIT from the e-mail of SIT for
Godhra cases to the then AAG. Both these e-mails were
related to the investigation done in the year 2005 in the
Sohrabuddin encounter case by the State Police (Crime)
of which IG (Crime) was incharge. She wrongly used the
B e-mail ID of Godhra cases at her cost to transmit these
information pertaining to CID (Crime) to the then AAG.
That information absolutely had nothing to do with the
matters pending investigation/inquiry/trial with the
Supreme Court-appointed SIT for Godhra cases.
C Petitioner made deliberate attempt to mislead this Court
and enclosed only the covering text of the e-mails and
intentionally avoided the enclosures because the same
would have exposed falsity of his stand. Thus, the
D petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
He suppressed the enclosures which he ought to have
filed and ought not to have made false allegations in the
writ petition that SIT was exchanging sensitive and
confidential information with the then AAG. It is
E unfortunate that on the one hand petitioner prayed for
appointment of SIT and on the other did not spare SIT
appointed by this Court and made false allegations
against it. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be said
to be desirable. [Para 51] [548-F-H; 549-A-D]
F
1.6 There are various reasons for which SIT
investigation is not warranted at all in the said case. The
scope of the case is only whether the petitioner had
obtained the affidavit of KD in an illegal manner for which
offence case has been registered. In the case
.G chargesheet has already been filed after investigation
by the concern~d police to the competent court. In the
counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, chargesheet
was placed on record, the statements of various
witnesses were recorded including the scientific
H evidence of mobile-tower, laptop etc. Statements of eye
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATTv. UNION OF INDIA
503
witnesses under section 164 Cr.PC were also recorded. A
Mobile record of the petitioner and the complainant
clearly indicate the exchange of calls between petitioner
and co-accused during the relevant period. It is also
found that the mobile tower location received from the
service providers with respect to complainant's mobile B
and petitioner's mobile established that the complainant
was present at the residence of the petitioner at the time
stated in the FIR and mobile tower location of rival
political luminaries and advocate who happens to be the
Chairman of Legal Cell of rival political party. Laptop .of C
the said advocate was seized and laboratory had
confirmed that affidavit was prepared on the same. Once
the chargesheet has been filed to the knowledge of the
petitioner before 4 years, it was not questioned and no 0
attempt was made by the petitioner to indicate how the
investigation is unfair and incomplete or in any of the
other aspects investigation is required. Credibility of the
investigation is not the subject matter at this stage. It has
to be gone into during the course of trial. The petitioner E
unnecessarily tried to wid.en the scope of the case and
no case is made out so as to direct investigation in CR.
No.149/2011 by SIT into the circumstances in which
affidavit dated 17.6.2011 of KO was obtained. Once the
chargesheet has been filed the court has to proceed in F
accordance with law in the matter. [Para 52) [549-F-H;
550-A-E)
1. 7 No case is made out for investigation by the SIT
into I-CR. No.149/2011 relating to preparation of affidavit
or for that matter in II-Crime No.3148/2011 relating to G
hacking of e-mail account and t~mpering with it. These
are not such cases of wide amplitude so as to warrant
SIT to be constituted or even the CBI to be entrusted
with the investigation. It is not for the petitioner to choose
the investigating machinery. The accused has no right H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 128.C.R.
A with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of
prosecution. The scope of cases in hand is not so wide
in magnitude so as to direct the SIT or CBI to investigate
into the matters. This Court has already appointed SIT
which has looked into various allegations raised by JJ
B in the course of which petitioner had been examined and
his stand regarding meeting dated 27 .2.2002 has not
been found to be correct. Whether there is hacking 9f email account in II-CR. No.3148/2011 and tampering with
e-mails, investigation is to be based on the scientific
C evidence. It cannot be said that merely because report
has been lodged by the then AAG of· the State,
investigation is not going to be fair or impartial. More so,
when it is to be based on the scientific evidence and in
0 case investigation is not fair or not made into all the
aspects it would be open to the petitioner to question it
at an appropriate time before an appropriate forum in
accordance with law.[Para 53, 54, 56, 57] [551-B-C, E; 552E; 553-D-F]
E
F
G
H
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC
409: 2007 (12) SCR 1100; Union oflndia &Anr.
v. WN. Chadha (1993) Supp 4 SCC 260: 1992
(3) Suppl. SCR 594; Ms. Mayawati v. Union of
India & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 106: 2012 (7) SCR
33; Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat
(2014) 4 sec 626: 2014 (3) SCR 932;CBI v.
Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253; Competition
Commission of India v. SAIL & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC
744: 2010 (11) SCR 112; Janta Dal v. H.S.
Choudhary (1991) 3 sec 756: 1991 (3) SCR
752; Babubhai v. s_tate of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC
254: 201 O (10 ) SCR 651; Zahira Habibulla
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004
(3) SCR 1050 ; Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA
Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 200: 2010 (1)
SCR 991; Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
(2011) 5 sec 79:
2011 (5) SCR 729; CBI v.
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (2012) 10 SCC 545:
2012 (8) SCR 945; R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State
of U.P. & Ors. (1994) Supp 1 SCC 143; Vineet
Narain & Ors. V Union of India & Ors. (1996) 2
SCC 199: 1996 (1) SCR 1053; Union of India &
Ors. V Sushi/ Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661;
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110:
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683; Centre for Public
Interest Litigation & Ors. V Union of India & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 560; Shahid Ba/wa v. Union of India
& Ors. (2014) 2 sec 687: 2013 (11) SCR 51;
Manoharlal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Ors.
(2014) 2 SCC 532; NHRC v. State of Gujarat
(2009) 6 SCC 342; Ram Jethmalani & Ors. V
Union of India & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 1: 2011 (8)
SCR 725 - referred to.
505
A
B
c
D
1.8 No case is made out to constitute SIT. No doubt E
about it "be you ever so high the faw is above you" is a
well accepted principle but in the instant case the
conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be ~bove
board. Neither it can be said that he has come to the court
with clean hands. Petitioner was a high ranking officer F
but he too cannot be said to be above. law. He must·
undergo the investigation as envisaged by law in case
he has committed the offences in question. [Para 59].
[555-G-H]
G
1.9 There is no need to monitor the case any further
since once chargesheet has been filed it is not
necessary for Court to monitor the case and the case of
hacking of e-mail account is not such which needs any
investigation by SIT or CBI or court's monitoring. The H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A submission thatthe Court can transfer investigation after
chargesheet is filed in extraordinary cases is untenable.
[Paras 60, 61] [556-A-D]
Jakia Nasim Ahesan Jafri & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
s
& ors. (2011) 12 sec 302: 2011 (11) SCR 365;
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
(2010) 2 SCC 200: 2010 (1) SCR 991; Narmada
Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 79:
2011 (5) SCR 729; State of Punjab v. Central
C
Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 182:
2011 (11) SCR 281; Bharati Tamang v. Union of
India & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 578: 2013 (14)
SCR 525 - referred to.
D
1.10 Merely taking somebody's opinion who is
outsider to litigation before filing the reply in the court
would not undermine the administration of justice in any
way and is not indicative of criminal conspiracy. There
are knowledgeable incumbents who can always be
E consulted and their opinion obtained. There is nothing
improper in it. If some reply/petition was to be filed in
Gujarat court and the same was shown to the said
gentl~man-for his opinion it would not subvert the course
of justice in any manner. When certain pleading is to be
F filed in court there is no legal bar on consultation with
the appropriate persons of confidence or having
requisite knowledge. [Para 63] [556-H; 557-A-B]
1.11 In the reports placed on record by petitioner
G only the action taken by SIT was mentioned and the
stage of investigation or need for conducting further
investigation. These reports did not contain material/
finding for or against any accused person hence no
advantage could be derived therefrom by any accused
H person. They did not contain such material disclosure
SANJIV RAJENDRABHATTv. UNION OF INDIA
507
of which may subvert the course of justice. No case is A
made out of criminal conspiracy and criminal contempt
or otherwise. It cannot be culled out how the course of
justice has been subverted by the said disclosure of SIT
reports. Thus, charge of criminal contempt cannot be
said to be taken home successfully. Petitioner has not B
been able to substantiate that the said actions interfered
or obstructed in the administration of justice in any
manner. Petitioner was not able to establish how the
reports could be of any help to anybody so as to subver'f
the course of justice or action otherwise amounts to·
interference with administration of justice. The petitioner ·
himself obtained these SIT reports, as per the then AAG
allegedly in illegal manner whereas as per petitioner by
sharing the e-mails of the then AAG. If they were meant D
to be confidential petitioner also used them and even
sent e-mail particulars ofthethenAAG to media channels.
Overall exchange has to be considered in the light of
sweeping accusations against the State and its large
number of functionaries. The .conduct of the then AAG E
in the circumstances he was placed, has been
unnecessarily adversely commented upon, the
accusation of criminal contempt is not at all made out.
[Para 64) [557-F-H; 558-A-D]
National Human Rights Commission v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 767: 2009 (7)
SCR 236 - referred to.
F
1.12 Merely sending some representation which
was to be submitted to the President and Prime Minister G
of India, and other documents to an advocate who was
a politician also would not tantamount to criminal
contempt unless and until it is shown that the information
was intended to help the accused in any manner H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A whatsoever, it cannot be said that sharing of information
tantamount to criminal contempt. [Para 65] [558-E-F]
Rachapudi Subba Rao v. Advocate General,
Andhra Pradesh (1981) 2 SCC 577: 1981 (2)
s
SCR 320; Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the Chief
·Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216: 1996 (3)
Suppl. SCR 677; Rizwan-Ul-Hasan &Anr. v. State
of UP AIR 1953 SC 185: 1953 SCR 581 -
referred to.
c
1.13 It does not appear that the e-mail exchange
between the then AAG and other functionaries
tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to
substantial interference in any other manner in due
o course of justice. It is not the case of scandalizing the
court or in any manner affecting fair decision of the c~urt
or undermining the majesty of the Court/people's
confidence in the administration of justice or bringing
or tending to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect
E which tantamount to criminal contempt under section
2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. [Para 69][562E-F]
1.14 As regards the prayer to initiate criminal
contempt on the basis of documents filed, on merits no
F case is made out of criminal contempt. One year
limitation is provided under section 20 of the Contempt
of Courts Act. Both applications are hopelessly barred
by limitation so as to initiate contempt. [Para 70][562-GH; 563-A]
G
1.15 Since there was interim stay, as charge-sheet
has been filed in I-CR. No.14912011, trial court to proceed
further in accordance with law, and investigation in 11CR. No.3148/2011 be made expeditiously in accordance
H with law. [Para 71] (563-B]
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA
509
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC
A
114: 2009 (16) SCR 111 - referred to.
Case Law Reference .
2009 (7) SCR 236
Referred to.
·Para 30
B
2011 (11) SCR 365
Referred to.
Para 49
2009 (16) SCR 111
Referred to.
Para 53
2007 (12) SCR 1100
Referred to.
Para 54
c
1992 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 594
Referred to.·
Para 54
2012 (7) . SCR 33
Referred to.
Para 54
2014 (3) SCR 932
Referred to.
Para 54
D
(1996) 11 sec 253
Referred to.
Para 54
2010 (11) SCR 112
Referred to.
Para 54
1991 ( 3) SCR 752
Referred to.
Para 55
E
2010 (10) SCR 651
· Referred to.
Para 56
2004 (3) SCR 1050
Referred to.
Para 56
2010 (1) SCR 991
Referred to.
Para 56
F
2011 (5) SCR 729
Referred to.
Para 56
2012 (8 ) SCR 945
Referred to.
Para 56
(1994) Supp 1 sec 143
Referred to.
Para 57
G
1996 (1) SCR 1053
Referred to.
Para 58
(1998) 8 sec 661
Referred to.
Para 58
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683
Referred to.
Para 58
(2011) 1 sec 560
Referred to.
Para 58
2013 (11) SCR 51
Referred to.
Para 58
B (2014) 2 sec 532
Referred to.
Para 58
(2009) 6 sec 342
Referred to.
Para 58
2011 (8) SCR 725
Referred to.
Para 58
c 2011 (11) SCR 281
Referred to.
Para 61
2013 (14) SCR 525
Referred to.
Para 61
1981 ( 2) SCR 320
Referred to.
Para 66
D 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 677
Referred to.
Para 67
1953 SCR 581
Referred to.
Para 68
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
E (Criminal) No. 135 of 2011
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIAJ
F
WITH
W. P. (CRL.)A. NO. 204 OF 2011
Ranjit Kumar, S. G., Maninder Singh,ASG, Indira Jaising,
Prakash Jani, C. S. Vaidyanathan Shankar, Vikas Singh, L.
G Nageshwara Rao, P. H. Prakesh, Bhumika Choudary, Rohan
Kothari, Kabir Ghosh, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Prashant
Bhushan, Neha Rathi, Aparna Bhat, Tanima Kishore, Binu
Tamta, Rajiv Nanda, Rajiv Singh, B. Ragunath, Sushma Suri,
T. N. Razdan, B.V. Bairam Das, Kabir Hathi, Manisha Luvkumar,
H Rajat Nair, Nalin Kohli, Rohan Jatley, Prabhas Bajaj, Manan
SANJIV RAJENDRABHATTv. UNION OF INDIA
511
Popli, Hemantika Wahi, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Nisha A
Mohan Das, Ajay Kumar Talesara, S.S. Shamshery, lshu
Prayash, R.C. Kohli, Preeti Bhardwaj, Aishwarya Bhati, T.
Gopal for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The petitions have been filed by
the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution. In W.P. (Crl.)
No.135/2011, a prayer has been made to direct transfer of the
investigation arising out of I-CR. No.149/2011 registered on r
the basis of FIR lodged by Mr. K.D. Panth at Ghatlodia Police
Station, Ahmedabad, (Rural), under sections 189, 193, 195,
341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") to any
independent agency like CBI outside t-he control of the State
Government. An application being Criminal Misc. Petition o
No.15871/2015 has been filed for issuance of further directions
in the changed circumstances to appoint an independent
Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct de nova
investigation in the aforesaid FIR. Prayer had also been made
to investigate into the additional documents filed on 29.7.2011. E
Proceedings for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution
read with Contempt of Courts Act, be initiated against
incumbents named in the application, and such other persons
as this Court may deem fit. A prayer has also been made to
direct certain service providers to preserve the e-mails and/or F
electronic traces thereof. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1587 4/
2015 has been filed for impleadment of certain incumbents
as respondents.
2. In W.P. (Crl.) No.204/2011, a prayer has been made G
to transfer investigation arising out of II-CR No.3148/2011
registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the then Additional
Advocate General of State .of Gujarat at Vastra1:rnr P.S.,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, (for short ""the IT Act") to any independent H ·
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A agency like the CBI outside the control of the State
Government. Similarly Crl.Misc. Petition No.15875/2015 for
aforesaid directions and for impleadment as respondents -
Crl.Misc. Petition No.15877/2015 has been filed.
B
3. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No.135/2011, the petitioner has
averred that investigation of I-CR No.149/2011 is required to
be transferred to CBI or any other investigating agency/SIT
outside the control of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. Since
the aforesaid FIR had been lodged with a view to falsely
c implicate, pressurize and intimidate the petitioner and other
witnesses as the petitioner in statements before the SIT as
well as before the Commission of Enquiry has divulged certain
facts which have the potential of directly implicating high
functionary of State of Gujarat in the riots of 2002 alleging that
D there is an unholy nexus between the prosecuting agency and
higher echelons of the Government of Gujarat in certain judicial
proceedings including W.P. (Civil) No.221/2002.
4. The petitioner has submitted that he joined the service
E as an IPS Officer way-back in the year 1988 and was allocated
to the State of Gujarat. From December, 1999 to September,
2002, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner with the State
lntellige_nce Bureau. He used to look after matters pertaining
to internal security of the State, Border Security, Coastal
F Security, security of vital installations, counter intelligence and
WIP security including that of the Chief Minister. He has alJeged
that he was present in the meeting convened by the then Chief·
Minister on the night of 27.2.2002. The instant FIR was a
counter-blast at the aforesaid action taken by the petitioner.
G The petitioner has submitted that Ms. Jakia Nasim Ahesan
Jafri had filed a complaint on 8.6.2006 which was ordered to
be looked into by SIT as per orders of this Court. The petitioner
is a close friend of the then AAG. They have been regularly
vacationing together for the last so many years. In 2009, they
H had made a family trip to Goa. At that time, it is alleged, at the
SANJIV RAJEJ\lORABHATiv. UNION OF INDIA
513
[ARUN MISHRA, J.)
request of the then AAG, the petitioner had accessed his eA
mail account. The petitioner came across very unusual e-mails
received from SIT, (sit.godhracases@gmail.com). It is alleged
that someone from SIT was leaking sensitive and confidential
contents. A copy of e-mail dated 14.9.2009 (P-4) has been
fi~.
B
5. In November, 2009, the .petitioner was informed
telephonically by the SIT appointed by this Court. Prior to the
scheduled interaction with the SIT, he was approached by the
then Minister of State, Home Department, and was sought to C
be briefed at the office of the then AAG of Gujarat. While
appearing before the SIT, he had informed Mr. A.K. Malhotra,
Member, SIT, about the episode and also leaking of
information by the SIT to the then AAG. His statement was
recorded on several occasions in 2009 and 2010 by the SIT. D
The petitioner has further averred that he had vacationed again.
in May-June, 2010 with the then AAG along with family. He
was again required to access the e-mail account on seve\ral
occasions. During the period from February to June, 2010, he
came across e-mail exchanges which clearly indicated ~n E
unholy and illegal complicity between the then AAG and the
functionaries of State of Gujarat. The petitioner has further
averred that on 20.9.2010, he briefed the Additional Chief
Secretary (Home) about the leakage of the testimony before F
the SIT. He was advised to meet the then Chief Minister to
clear the air. In the intervening night of 3rd and 4th Novembert,
2010, the house of the petitioner's mother was ransacked~
The petitioner had lodged FIR (P-5) at Navrangpura Police
Station registered as I-CR. No.449/2010. Again the incident G
was repeated on the intervening night of 81h and 91h November,
2010 and a steel almirah which could not be broken open on
the earlier occasion, was broken and searched. FIR (P-6) was
lodged at Navrangpura Police Station as I-CR No.456/2010 ..
The petitioner requested for adequate security cover vide letter· H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A dated 14.2.2011 (P-7).
6. On 15.3.2011 this Court directed the Chairman, SIT
to carry out investigation and submit a report on the
observations IT)ade by the amicus curiae appointed by this
B Court. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was summoned by the
SIT under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
connection with the investigation of Meghani Nagar Police
Station, I-CR. No.67/2002. He was issued summons (P-10)
for 21.3.2011 under section 160 Cr.PC. The SIT started
C recording of statements of the petitioner on 21.3.2011 which
was concluded on 25.3.2011. On 25.3.2011 while recording
statement of the p~titioner, the SIT expressed its inability to
encompass the details indicative of larger conspiracy of official
orchestration behind Gujarat riots of 2002. The SIT selfD restricted the scope of FIR under investigation. The petitioner
had taken Mr. K.D. Pa nth along with him to the office of the SIT
to corroborate the fact of his having attended the fateful meeting
at the residence of the then Chief Minister on the late night of
27.2.2002. SIT was averse to record the statement of Mr. Pa nth
E including Mr. Tara Chand Yadav who could have corroborated
. the fact of petitioner's presence in the meeting. Later on, the
SIT examined Mr. K.D. Panth. While recording statement, he
was subjected to intimidation and coercion by the SIT. The
F fact was informed to him on 6.4.2011 by Mr. K.D. Panth. The
petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman, SIT about the
intimidation meted out to Mr. Panth, and expressed an
apprehension as to the role and intention of certain members
of the SIT On 14.4.2011, the petitioner sent an affidavit to this
G Court in SLP (Criminal) No.1088/2008 pointing out certain
aspects and inadequacies in the manner and approach of the
SIT and intimidation of Mr. Panth. In the affidavit he has also
mentioned the details of the meeting convened by the then
Chief Minister on 27 .2.2002. On 27.4.2011, the petitioner was
H summoned by Justice Nanavati and Mehta Commission of
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHA TI v. UNION OF INDIA
515
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Inquiry (for short 'Justice Nanavati Comll)ission') directing him A
to appear on 16.5.2011. This Court vide order dated 5.5.2011
(P-18) in SLP (Crl.) No.1088/2008 directed the amicus curiae
to examine the record of the SIT. He was permitted to interact
with the witnesses examined by the SIT. On 27.5.2011, the
petitioner was asked by amicus curiae to remain at B
Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) on 18/19.6.2011.
7. The petitioner then informed Mr. K.D. Panth and Mr.
T.C. Yadav about the forthcoming visit of the amicus curiae.
The petitioner suggested to Mr. T.C. Yadav and Mr. K.D. Panth C
that they may prepare affidavits to be given to amicus curiae
on 18.6.2011. The petitioner submitted that they agreed and
requested the petitioner to arrange for trustworthy advocate
who could help them in preparing and affirming the proposed
affidavits in strict confidence. Both the witnesses got their D
affidavits prepared and affirmed on 17.6.2011 and gave them
to the petitioner. On 18.6.2011 the petitioner met the amicus
curiae. Mr. T.C. Yadav also met amicus curiae. However, Mr.
K.D. Panth did not turn up. The petitioner then handed over a
copy of the affidavit affirmed by Mr. K.D.Panth to the amicus E
curiae. The petitioner came to know on 22.6.2011 that senior
police officials pressurized Mr. K.D. Panth and made him to
affirm the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate at
Gandhinagar negating the earlier affidavit sworn by him before F
the Notary Public on 17.6.2011. A written complaint was
prepared atthe behest of Mr. K.D. Panth on the basis of which
at 2330 hrs. on 22.6.2011 an FIR (P-13) was registered at
Ghatlodia Police Station as I-CR. No.149/2011. In the course
of the.statement before the Commission, the counsel for the G
State of Gujarat intimidated to the effect that the petitioner was
crossing the line. Certain applications were filed in the ongoing
criminal sessions cases to summon the petitioner under section
311 as a witness in May-June, 2011.
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
The FIR has been registered againstthe petitioner. He
has no hope of fair investigation in CR. No.149/2011 hence
the petition has been preferred.
8. The State of Gujarat in its counter affidavit has inter
s a/ia raised the question of maintainability of the petition and
has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing certain
facts and has made incorrect statement on oath. Thus he is
guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The petitioner
has filed concocted documents regarding award of Rs.500/-
C given to Mr. K.D. Panth for working till late night on 27.2.2002.
The original award is in vernacular language, not in English
and the outward number is incorrect. It was not for working
overnight on 27 .2 .2002 as contended by the petitioner. It was
for taking care of entire situation post 27.2.2002 incident. The
D petitioner has tried to mislead this Court and has made false
suggestions. The award was given by the State Government
to all employees for taking care of post the situation of
27.2.2002 incident.
E
This Court has considered all the allegations made by
petitioner against them in SLP (Crl.) No.1088/2008 monitored
by a ~pecial Bench of this Court.
9. Investigation into the riot cases of 2002 is completed
F by the SIT appointed by this Court and trials are going on in
accordance with the orders passed by this Court on 1.5.2009
in W.P. (Crl.) No.109/2003. In Gu/berg Society case also, this
Court has passed order in SLP (Crl.) No.1088/2008. The
complaint of Ms. Jakia Jafri dated 8.6.2006 has already been
G examined by the SIT. The petitioner cannot choose
investigating agency. The petitioner appears to have been
brought at the scene at the fag end of the trial by the political
parties, activists and other vested interest groups. An activist
has filed an application for being impleaded as respondent.
H While petitioner was in connivance and constant consultation
SANJIVRAJENDRABHATiv. UNION OF INDIA
517
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
with the adversary political party and vested interest groups, A
he has no explanation to keep quiet for nine years as to the
meeting dated 27.2.2002. Other facts have also been denied ..
In e-mai.1 (P-4) filed by the petitioner, attachments indicate that
. it was with respect to Sohrabuddin encounter, the petitioner
has made false suggestions and allegations as to the contents B
of e-mails and absolutely false allegations against·SIT. The
Sohrabuddin encounter case was investigated by Gujarat
State CID.
10. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner is c
guilty of hacking the e-mail account of the the.n MG for which
offence under section 66 of the IT Act has been registered.
Petitioner was leaking information and interacting with media
and other vested interest groups. He even attempted to use
media card to influence judicial proceedings. The affidavit sent D
by the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.1088/2008 was not taken on
record. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. He is
acting at the behest of rival political party in the State of Gujarat.
The State has made serious allegations against the petitioner
and real motives to file the petition in this Court. It has placed E
on record e-mails sent/received by the petitioner which indicate
that the petitioner has interacted with the Deputy leader of
Assembly belonging to rival political party. He has tried to
influence amicus curiae and the 3-member Bench of this Court
by using media card and using pressure groups. He was F
receiving packages and materials from the leader of rival
political party in Gujarat. He has referred to rival political party
as. his own party. While being cross-examined by the
opposition parties before Justice Nanavati Commission, G
petitioner has send e-mail that the performance of the advocate
of the rival political party was pathetic and mentioned that "I
am under exploited".
11. Petitioner was also negotiating with several vested
interest groups, NGOs. and was trying to influence the amicus H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A curiae appointed by this Court. E-mails reveal that someone
else was instrumental in sending the unsolicited affidavit of
petitioner to this Court on 14.4.2011. He was in constant touch
with an activist and her lawyer. E-mail discloses unholy nexus
of the petitioner with politicians, NGOs .. activists etc. It is
B submitted that on behalf of the rival political party, a prayer
was made to call the petitioner as witness. The petitioner did
not object to the cross-examination by Jan Sangharsh Manch,
and to the main rival political party, in Gujarat, but objected to
the cross-examination by the State of Gujarat.
c
12. It is further contended by the State that Mr. K. D. Pa nth
appeared before the Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar on
17.6.2011 and swore an affidavit as to the petitioner illegally
obtaining affidavit which was filed before the amicus curiae
D by the petitioner. The allegation regarding destruction of
records has also been denied. The record of category 'D' is
maintained only for 3 years that is log book of the vehicle and
the same is not available with the State Government as the
copies are maintained by the concerned officers
E contemporaneously who submit the same. The petitioner failed
to appear despite several summons in CR. No.149/2011, he
was arrested and was immediately visited by the leaders of
rival political party.
F
13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Mr. K.D. Panth,
respondent No.4, it !s contended that the investigation in I-CR.
No.149/2011 is over. He has not received any award for
working late in the niqht on 27 .2 .2002. The petitioner has made
false averments. Petitioner had taken him to the residence of
G the President of Gujarat State Unit of main rival political party.
The incident is established by way of sdentific evidence
reflected in chargesheet. He was in Maharashtra from
25.2.2002 to 28.2.2002. He had visited notary/advocate at
H Bombay (Maharashtra) for the purpose of getting the translated
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA
519
[ARUN MISHRA, J.)
documents notarized/certified. Petitioner has falsely asserted A
that he accompanied him to the meeting at the residence of
the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002.
14. He had received a call from the petitioner at 1557
hours and he was asked to meet the petitioner at 2200 hours B
at his residence. Petitioner had taken him to President of the
Gujarat State rival political party, wherefrom he was taken to
the office of the co-accused, Chairman of the Legal Cell of the
said party and was permitted to leave early in the morning
hours after preparation of affidavit dated 17.6.2011. All the C
movements are substantiated by the mobile call records and
mobile tower locations. Respondent No.4 has given the
statement before the SIT constituted by this Court. The
petitioner is making frivolous contentions.
15. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
respondent No.5-SIT contending that the evidence given by
D
Mr. Bhatt is absolutely unreliable. His antecedents have been
mentioned in detail. The petitioner remained posted in various
capacities in the State bf Gujarat. There were 3 departmental E
inquiries pending against him. He was given 3 promotions of
Junior Administrative Grade, Selection Grade and DIG Grade
vide orders dated 6.8.2005, 3.9.2005 and 24.7 .2006
respectively. He was not given IGP Grade as other
departmental enquiries and criminal cases were pending
F
against him. Chargesheet was served upon him on 29.12.2010
for irregularities in the Police recruitment under his
Chairmanship as SP, Banaskantha. In the year 1990, the
petitioner allegedly committed atrocities on peaceful and
innocent villagers belonging to a place called Jamjodhpur in G
which one person was killed.