# VINEET NARAIN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1997] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 595
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1997-12-18
- **Bench:** J.S. Verma, S.P. Bharucha, S.C. Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vineet-narain-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-anr-16023
- **Pages:** 59

## Headnote

B
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Ss. 3, 4( 1 )-Single Directive No. 4. 7(3 )-Powers of investigation of the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI)-Requirement of prior sanction of Secretary of concerned Ministry
before any enquiry is instituted against officials at decision-making levels of C
govemment-Validity of-Held, Single Directive strnck down as not valid-Not
pennissible as exercise of power of superintendence of Central Govemment
under s.4(1) DSPE Act-Fwther held, power of CBI to investigate offences
cannot be cwtailed by executive instmction-Police Act 1861, s.3.
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 32, 141, 142 and 144--lssuing D
guidelines and consequential directions-Justification f 01~Held, where there
is inaction by executive to issue orders to fill vacuum in legislation, judiciary
must step in to provide solution till such time legislature acts-Guildelines
and Directions having force of law issued.
Public Interest Litigation---Co11stitutio11 of India A1ticles 32, 142--Contirming mandamus-Concept explained-Practice and Procedure.
Practice and Procedure-In camera proceedings-Need for--Explai11ed-Constitutio11 of India, Articles 32, 142.
l11te1pretation of Statutes-Hannonious const111ction-'Supe1intende11ce' in s.4( 1) DSPE Act, 1946 cannot be constrned in wider sense to pennit
supe1vision of CBI's investigation contlary to manner provided by statutory
provisions-Words and Phrases.
Conse11nent upon the arrest in 1991 of AHL, alleged to belong to a
terrorist organization, raids were conducted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) on the premises of SKJ, his brothers, relations and
businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two
diaries ('Jain Diaries') and tw'l notebooks which contained detailed acE
F
G
counts of vast payments made tu persons identified only by initials.
H
595
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
The initials corresponded to those of various high ranking
politicians, in power anid out of power, and of' high ranking bureaucrats.
The present writ petitions were filed in October, 1993, in the public
interest under Article :32 of the Constitution of India alleging that the
B government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities had failed
to perform their legal obligation to investigate the matters arising out of
the seizure of the Jain Diaries; that the apprehension of terrorists had led
to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal
means using tainted funds obtained through 'havala' transaction; that this
had also disclosed a nexus between 1101iticians, bureaucrats and criminals,
C who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, given for unlawful
consideration; that the failure to investigate was with a view to protect the
persons involved, who were very inlluential and powerful; that the rule of
law required that the government agencies be compelled to proceed in
accordance with law against every person involved, irrespective of where
D he was placed in the poliLtical hierarchy.
E
F
This Court passed a series of orders, through the device of 'continuing mandamus', monitoring the investigation of the case by the CBI. This
resulted' in the filing of 34 chargesheets against 54 persons.
In its report submitted to the Central Government in October, 1993
the Vohra Committee painted a dismal picture of the powerful nexus
between the bureaucracy and politicians with the mafia gangs, smugglers
and the underworld. It rrecommended the setting up of a nodal agency
under the Ministry of Home Affairs for compilation of all information
received from the agencies.
In September, 1997 the Central Government appointed an Independent Review Committee (IRC) which reaffirmed the need to restructure
the agencies with a view to improving their hitherto unsatisfactory perforG mance. The IRC made several recommendations including conferring
statutory status on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). However,
the IRC accepted the leg

## Text

_Characters 0–39,973 of 127,675. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._

VINEET NARAIN AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
DECEMBER 18, 1997
(J.S. VERMA, CJ, S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, J.J.]
B
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Ss. 3, 4( 1 )-Single Directive No. 4. 7(3 )-Powers of investigation of the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI)-Requirement of prior sanction of Secretary of concerned Ministry
before any enquiry is instituted against officials at decision-making levels of C
govemment-Validity of-Held, Single Directive strnck down as not valid-Not
pennissible as exercise of power of superintendence of Central Govemment
under s.4(1) DSPE Act-Fwther held, power of CBI to investigate offences
cannot be cwtailed by executive instmction-Police Act 1861, s.3.
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 32, 141, 142 and 144--lssuing D
guidelines and consequential directions-Justification f 01~Held, where there
is inaction by executive to issue orders to fill vacuum in legislation, judiciary
must step in to provide solution till such time legislature acts-Guildelines
and Directions having force of law issued.
Public Interest Litigation---Co11stitutio11 of India A1ticles 32, 142--Contirming mandamus-Concept explained-Practice and Procedure.
Practice and Procedure-In camera proceedings-Need for--Explai11ed-Constitutio11 of India, Articles 32, 142.
l11te1pretation of Statutes-Hannonious const111ction-'Supe1intende11ce' in s.4( 1) DSPE Act, 1946 cannot be constrned in wider sense to pennit
supe1vision of CBI's investigation contlary to manner provided by statutory
provisions-Words and Phrases.
Conse11nent upon the arrest in 1991 of AHL, alleged to belong to a
terrorist organization, raids were conducted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) on the premises of SKJ, his brothers, relations and
businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two
diaries ('Jain Diaries') and tw'l notebooks which contained detailed acE
F
G
counts of vast payments made tu persons identified only by initials.
H
595
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
The initials corresponded to those of various high ranking
politicians, in power anid out of power, and of' high ranking bureaucrats.
The present writ petitions were filed in October, 1993, in the public
interest under Article :32 of the Constitution of India alleging that the
B government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities had failed
to perform their legal obligation to investigate the matters arising out of
the seizure of the Jain Diaries; that the apprehension of terrorists had led
to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal
means using tainted funds obtained through 'havala' transaction; that this
had also disclosed a nexus between 1101iticians, bureaucrats and criminals,
C who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, given for unlawful
consideration; that the failure to investigate was with a view to protect the
persons involved, who were very inlluential and powerful; that the rule of
law required that the government agencies be compelled to proceed in
accordance with law against every person involved, irrespective of where
D he was placed in the poliLtical hierarchy.
E
F
This Court passed a series of orders, through the device of 'continuing mandamus', monitoring the investigation of the case by the CBI. This
resulted' in the filing of 34 chargesheets against 54 persons.
In its report submitted to the Central Government in October, 1993
the Vohra Committee painted a dismal picture of the powerful nexus
between the bureaucracy and politicians with the mafia gangs, smugglers
and the underworld. It rrecommended the setting up of a nodal agency
under the Ministry of Home Affairs for compilation of all information
received from the agencies.
In September, 1997 the Central Government appointed an Independent Review Committee (IRC) which reaffirmed the need to restructure
the agencies with a view to improving their hitherto unsatisfactory perforG mance. The IRC made several recommendations including conferring
statutory status on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). However,
the IRC accepted the legality af the Single Directive No. 4.7(3) whereunder
prior sanction of the Secretary to the concerned ministry had to be
obtained before instituting an enquiry or search against officials at the
H decision-making level of government.
•
VINEETv. U.O.l.
597
The Union of India informed this Court that although there was no
negative reaction to tlle report of the IRC, further action could not be
taken due to certain practical difliculties. This Court then examined the
constitution and control of the agencies, including the validity of the Single
Directive, and the need to frame a scheme to insulate them from extraneous influences, even of the controlling executive.
Disposing of the petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The Single Directive could not be upheld as valid on the
ground of it being permissible in exercise of the power of superintendence
of the Central Government under s.4(1) of the DSPE Act. It was liable to
be struck down. [640-E]
1.2. Once the jurisdiction was conferred on the CBI to investigate an
offence by virtue of notification under s3 of the DSPE Act, the powe1·s of
investigation would be governed by the statutory provisions and they could
A
B
c
not be estopped or curtailed by any executive instruction issued under D
s.4(1) thereof. [638-C]
13. In the absence of any statutory requirement of prior permission
or sanction for investigation, it could not be imposed as a condition
precedent for investigation, once jurisdiction was conferred on the CBI to
investigate the offence by virtue of the notification under s3 of the DSPE
Act. This could not be included within the meaning of "superintendence"
in s.4(1). [638-F; 637-D]
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 655 and State of Bihar
v. J A. C. Saldanha, [1980] 1 SCC 554, referred to.
1.4. The powers of a Minister were subject to the condition that none
of them would extend to permit the Minister to interfere with the course
of investigation and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect
the concerned oflicers were to be governed entirely by the mandate of law
E
F
and the statutory duty cast upon them. [630-G]
G
Union of India v. Sushi! Kumar Modi, [1997] 4 SCC 770, referred to.
2.1. It was the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive
orders because its field was coterminus with that of the legislature. Where
there was inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, it was H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A essential and indeed the constitutional obligation of this Court to issue the
necessary directions for strict compliance which were to operate till such
time they were replaced by suitable legislation. [641-C-D]
B
2.2. There were ample powers conferred by Article 32 read with
Article 142 to make orders which had the effect of law by virtue of Article
141 and there was a mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders
of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. [640-H]
Erach Sam Kanga v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 2632 of (1978)
decided on March 20, (1979); Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (in
C Re.Foreign Adoption), [1984] 2 SCC 244; State of West Bengal v. Sampat
Lal, [1985] 2 SCR 256; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, [1991] 3 StC 655;
Union Carbide Cmporation v. Union of India, [1991] 4 SCC 584; Delhi
Judicial Se1vice Association v. State of Gujarat (Nadiad Case), [1991] 4 SCC
406; Delhi Development Authmity v. Skipper Constmction Co. (P) Ltd.,
D [1996] 4 SCC 622, Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, [1997] 4 SCC 306;
Supreme Cowt Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India ( llnd
Judges case), [1993] 4 SCC 441 and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, '[1997]
6 sec 2_41, referred to.
Lord Nolan's repmt [1995] Vol. I and R. v. Secretmy of State for
E Foreign and Commonwealth Affai1:1-, (1995) 1 WLR 386, referred to.
F
3.1. The procedure adopted was nne of 'continuing mandamus'. The
continuing inertia of the agencies to even commence a proper investigation
could not be tolerated any longer. Mere issuance of a mandamus directing
the agencies to perform tl!Jeir task would have heen futile.-This necessitated
issuance of directions from time to time, keeping the matter pending and
requiring the agencies to report the progress of investigation so that
monitoring by the court could ensure continuance of the investigation.
[604-B; E-F]
3.2. The task of the monitoring would end the moment a charge sheet
G was filed in respect of a particular investigation. The ordinary processes
of the law would then take over. It was necessary to direct the CBI not to
report the progress of t:he investigations to the person occupying the
highest office in the political executive;. this was done to eliminate any
impression of bias and to maintain the credibility of the investigations.
H
[603-H; 604-A]
•
VINEETv. U.0.1.[VERMA, CJ.)
599
Vi11eet Narai11 v. U11ion of India, Orders dated 18.4.1995, 16.1.1996 A
(1996) 2 Scale SP 42, 30.1.1996 (1996] 2 SCC 199, 22.2.1996, (1996] 2 Scale
SP 84, 1.3.1996 [1997] 4 SCC 778, 13.3.1996 (1996) 4 Scale SP 3, 1.5.1996
[1996] 4 Scale SP 56, 26.7.1996, (1996) 6 Scale SP 24, 9.7.1997 (1997) 5 Scale
254, explained.
Dr. Subramainam Swamy v. Director, CBI, Orders dated 24.2.97 and
18.3.97 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 38 of (1997), referred to.
A1111kul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, Orders dated 12.2.1996
(1996) 3 Scale SP 35, 2.4.1996, 26.4.1994 (1996) 4 Scale SP 71, 26.7 .1996
(1996) 6 Scale SP 23 and 7 .10.1996 [1996] 6 SCC 354, referred to.
4. The innovation in procedure by holding some of the hearings in
camera was made, on request, to reconcile the interest of justice with that of
the accused. The requirement of a public hearing in a court of law for a fair
trial was subject to the need of proceedings being held in camera to the extent
necessary in public interest and to avoid prejudice to the accused. [612-E-F]
5. The word "superintendence" ins. 4 (1) could not be construed in a
wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence
by the CBI contrary to the manner provided by the statutory provisions.
[638-E; HJ
B
c
D
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.)
E
Nos. 340-43 of 1993.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Anil B. Divan, (AC.), Abani Kumar Sahu, A.K. Panda, Mukul
Mudgal and Anil Nauriya for the Petitioners.
F
Ashok H. Desai, Attorney, K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General,
Pallav Shishodia, Ms. Anuradha Bindra and P. Parmeswaran for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VERMA, CJI. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India brought in public interest, to begin with, did not appear to
have the potential of escalating to the dimensions they reached or to give
rise to several issues of considerable significance to the implementation of
G
rule of law, which they have,. during their progress. They began as yet H
•
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A another complaint of inertia by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
in matters where the accusation made was against high dignitaries. It was
not the only matter of its kind during the recent past. The primary question
was : Whether it is within the domain of judicial review and it could be an
effective instrument for activating the investigative process which is under
the control of executive ? The focus was on the question, whether any
B judicial remedy is available in such a situation? However, as the case
progressed, it required innovation of a procedure within the constitutional
scheme of judicial review to permit intervention by the court to find a
solution to the problem. This case had helped to develop a procedure
within the discipline of law for the conduct of such a proceeding in similar
c
situatic~n.s. It has also generated awareness of the need of probity in public
life and provided a mode of enforcement of accountability in public life.
Even though the matter was brought to the court by certain individuals
claiming to represent public interest, yet as the case progressed, in keeping
with the requirement of public interest, the procedure devised was to
appoint the petitioners' counsel as the amicus cwiae and to make such
D orders from time to time as were consistent with public interest. Intervention in the proceedings by everyone else was shut out but permission was
granted to all, who so desired, to render such assistance as they could, and
to provide the relevant material available with them to the amicus cwiae
for being placed before the court for its consideration. In short, the
E
F
proceedings in this matter have had great educative value and it does
appear that it has helped in future decision making and functioning of the
public authorities.
We must <it the outset place on record our great appreciation of the
assistance rendered by the amicus cwiae, Shri Anil B. Divan and the
lawyers assisting him, namely, Shri Abani Kumar Sahu, Shri Anil Kumar
Panda, Shri Mukul Mudgal, Shri Anil Nauriya and also Ms. Latha Krishnamurthy. We also place on record equal appreciation of the law officers
and the team which has assisted them in these proceedings. At the commencement of the proceedings, the then Solicitor General Shri Dipankar
P. Gupta appeared for the Union of India and the government agencies.
G Later after Dipankar P. Gupta demitted office, the Attorney General Shri
Ashok H. Desai appeared in this case throughout. The law officers and
their team of assistants, namely Shri K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor
General, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri P. Parmeswaran and Ms. Anuradha
Bindra, rendered very able assistance throughout and discharged the duty
expected of law officers. All of them, at great personal inconvenience and
H expense, rose to extraordinary heights in keeping with the true traditions
•
...
•
VINEET v. U.O.l.[VERMA, CJ.]
601
of the Bar. In essence, everyone of them discharged the role of amicus A
cwiae, without, at any stage, adopting the adversarial stance. If it has been
possible to achieve some success in these proceedings to improve and
innovate the procedure and fructify new ideas for betterment of the polity,
it is only because of the positive response of the Bar and the assistance
rendered by it. We must also record our appreciation of the officers of the
CBI . and the Revenue Department who actively participated in these B
proceedings and showed a definite improvement in their perception of the
rule of law as the case progressed; and their ability to perform improved
once they were assured of protection in the honest discharge of their
duties.
This experience revealed to us the need for the insulation of these
agencies from any extraneous influence to ensure the continuance of the
good work they have commenced. It is this need which has impelled us to
examine the structure of these agencies and to consider the necessary steps
which would provide permanent insulation to the agencies against extraneous influences to enable them to discharge their duties in the manner
required for proper implementation of the rule of law. Permanent
measures are necessary to avoid the need of every matter being brought to
the court for taking ad hoc measures to achieve the desired results. This is
the occasion for us to deal with the structure, constitution and the permanent measures necessary for having a fair and impartial agency. The
faith and commitment to the rule of law exhibited by all concerned in these
proceedings is the surest guarantee of the survival of democracy of which
rule of law is the bedrock. The basic postulate of the concept of equality :
'Be you ever so high, the law is above you', has governed all steps taken by
us in these proceedings.
Facts
c
D
E
F
A brief narration of the facts of this case is necessary; On 25th
March, 1991, one Ashfak Hussain Lone, alh;ged to be an Official of the
terrorist organisation Hizbul Mujahideen, was arrested in Delhi. Consequent upon his interrogation, raids were conducted by the Central Bureau G
of Investigation (CBI) on the premises of Surender Kumar .T ain, his
brothers, relations and businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency,
the CBI seized two diaries and two note books from the premises. They
contained detailed accounts of vast payments made to persons identified
only by initials. The initials corresponded to the initials of various high
ranking politicians, in power and out of power, and of high ranking H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A bureaucrats. Nothing having been done in the matter of investigating the
Jains or the contents of their diaries, the present writ petitions were filed
on 4th October, 1993, in the public interest under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
The gist of the allegations in the writ petitions is that Government
B agencies like the '::BI and the revenue authorities had failed to perform
their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they had failed to investigate
matters arising out of the seizure of the "Jain diaries"; that the apprehension of terrorists had led to the discovery of financial support to them by
clandestine and illegal means using tainted funds obtained through 'havala'
C transactions; that this had also disclosed a nexus between politicians,
bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of money from unlawful
sources, given for unlawful consideration; that the CBI and other Government agencies had failed to investigate the matter, take it to its logical
conclusion and prosecute all persons who were found to have committed
an offence; that this was done with a view to protect the persons involved,
D who were very influential and powerful; that the matter disclosed a nexus
between crime and corruption at high places in public life and it posed a
serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation; that
probity in public life, the rule of law and the preservation of democracy
required that the Government agencies be compelled to duly perform their
legal obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against every
E person involved, irrespective of where he was placed in the political
hierarchy. The writ petitions prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs :
F
G
H
"(a) that the above said offences disclosed by the facts mentioned
in the petition be directed to be investigated in accordance with
law;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint officers of
the police or others in whose integrity, independence and competence this Hon'ble Court has confidence for conducting and/or
supervising the said investigation;
( c) that suitable clirections be given by this Hon'ble Court and
orders issuec! to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according
to law;
xxx
xxx
xxx
-
VINEETv. U.0.1.jVERMA, CJ.]
603
(I) that directions be given so that such evil actions on the part of A
the investigating agencies and their political supenors are not
repeated in future."
It will be seen that the reliefs sought in the writ petitions fall into two
broad classes. The first class relates to investigations in the matter of the
"Jain diaries". The second class !prayer (f)] relates to the manner in which
investigations of offences of a similar nature that may occur hereafter
should be conducted.
Procedure adopted
We have taken the view that, given the political personalities of the
people to be investigated in the ".Jain diaries" case and the time already lost
in commencing the investigations, it was advantageous not to hear the
matter through and issue a writ of.mandamus, leaving it to the authorities
B
c
to comply with it, but to keep the matter pending while the investigations
were being carried on, lmsuring that this was done by monitoring them D
from time to time and issuing orders in this behalf.
Our reasoned orders are dated 18.4.1995, 16.1.1996 (1996) 2 Scale
SP 42, 30.1.1996 (1996] 2 SCC 199, 22.2.1996 (1996) 2 Scale SP 84, l.3.1996
(1997] 4 SCC 778, 13.3.1996 (1996) 4 Scale SP 3, 1.5.1996 (1996) 4 Scale
SP 56, 26.7.1996 (1996) 6 Scale SP 24, 9.7.1997 (1997) 5 Scale 254. Orders
in similar matters, being the orders dated 12.2.1996 (1996) 3 Scale SP 35,
2.4.1996, 26.4.1996 (1996) 4 Scale SP 71, 26.7.1996 (1996) 6 Scale SP 23 a.nd
7.10.1996 (1996] 6 SCC 354 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640of1995 -Anukul
Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others, and orders dated 24.2.1997
and 18.3.1997 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 1997 - Dr. Subramaniam
Swamy v. Direct01; CBI & Ors., are also relevant.
The sum and substance of these orders is that the CBI and other
Governmental agencies had not carried out their public duty to investigate
E
F
the 9ffences disclosed; that none stands above the law so that an alleged
offence by him is not required to be investigated; that we would monitor G
the investigations, in the sense that we would do what we permissibly could
to see that the investigations progressed while yet ensuring that we did not
direct or channel those investigations or in any other manner prejudice the
right of those who might be accused to a full and fair trial. We mad~ it
clear that the task of the monitoring court would end the moment a
charge-sheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation and that the H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
ordinary processes of the law would then take over. Having regard to the
direction in which the investigations were leading, we found it necessary to
direct the CBI not lo report the progress of the investigations to the person
occupying the highest office in the political executive; this was done to
eliminate any impression of bias or lack of fairness or objectivity and to
B
c
maintain the credibility of the investigations. In short, the procedure
adopted was of 'continuing mandamus'.
Even after this matter was brought to the court complaining of the
inertia of CBI and the other agencies to investigate into the offences
because of the alleged involvement of several persons holding high offices
in the executive, for quite some time the disinclination of the agencies to
proceed with the investigation was apparent. The accusation, if true,
revealed a nexus between high ranking politicians and bureaucrats who
were alleged to have been funded by a source linked with the source
funding the terrorists. In view of the funding also through foreign currency,
some undesirable foreign elements appeared to be connected. This
D revealed a grave situation posing a serious threat even to the unity and
integrity of the nation. The serious threat posed to the Indian polity could
not be underscored. The obvious need for an expeditious and thorough
probe which had already been delayed for several years could not but be
countenanced. The continuing inertia of the agencies to even commence a
E
F
proper investigation could not be tolerated any longer. In view of the
persistence of that situation, it became necessary as the proceedings
progressed to make some orders which would activate the CBI and the
other agencies to at least commence a fruitful investigation. Merely issuance of a mandamus directing the agencies to perform their task would
be futile and, therefore, it was decided to issue directions from time to time
and keep the matter pending requiring the agencies to report the progress
of investigation so that monitoring by the court cou.ld ensure continuance
of the investigation. It was, therefore, decided to direct the CBI and other
agencies to complete the investigation expeditiously, keeping the court
informed from time to time of the progress of the investigation so that the
court retained siesin of the matter till the investigation was completed and
the chargesheets were filed in the competent court for being dealt with,
G thereafter, in accordance with law.
The first order to this effect was made on 5.12.1994 when the CBI
Director was required to personally supervise the investigations carried-on
by the CBI as the overall incharge and to report to the court the progress
H made from time to time. The true scope of the matter was indicated in an
VINEETv. u.o.qvERMA, CJ.]
605
order dated 30th .January, 1996 [reported in [1996) 2 sec 199 as under :
"The true scope of this writ petition has been indicated during
the earlier hearings. At this stage, when some charge sheets have
been filed in the Special Court and there is considerable publicity
in the media regarding this matter, with some speculation about
its true scope, it is appropriate to make this order to form a part
of the record.
The gist of the allegations in the .writ petition are that Government agencies, like the CBI and the revenue authorities have failed
to perform their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they have
failed to properly investigate matters arising out of the seizure of
the so called "Jain Diaries" in certain raids conducted by the CBI.
It is alleged that the apprehending of certain terrorists led to the
discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal
means, by use of tainted funds obtained through 'havala' transactions; that this also disclosed a nexus between several important
politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who are all recipients of
money from unlawful sources given for unlawful considerations;
that the CBI and other Government agencies have failed to fully
investigate into the mater and take it to the logical end point of
the trial and to prosecute all persons who have committed any
crime; that this is being done with a view to protect the persons
involved, who are very influential and powerful in the present set
up; that the matter discloses a definite nexus between crime and
corruption in public life at high places in the country which poses
a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation;
that probity in public life, to prevent erosion of the rule of law and
the preservation of democracy in the country, requires that the
Government agencies be compelled to duly perform their legal
obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against each
and every person involved, irrespective of the height at which he
is placed in the power set up.
The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate
that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined
thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all Government agencies,
entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations
in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the
concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
tenet of rule of law : "Be you ever so high, the law is above you".
Investigation into every accusation made against each and every
person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status
of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously.
This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
working of the Government agencies.
In this proceeding we are not concerned with the merits of the
accusations or the individuals alleged to be involved, but only with
the performance of the legal duty by the Government agencies to
fairly, properly and fully investigate into every suca accusation
against every person, and to take the logical final action in accordance with law.
In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made out
and a charge sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court
which will then deal with that case on merits, in accordance with law.
However, if in respect of any such person the final report after
full investigation is that no prim a f acie case is made out to proceed
further, so that the case must be closed against him, that report
must be promptly submitted to !his Court for its satisfaction that
the concerned authorities have not failed to perform their legal
obligations and have reasonably come to such conclusion. No such
report having been submitted by the CBI or any other agency till
now in this Court, action on such a report by this Court would be
considered, if and when that occasion arises. We also direct that
no settlement should be arrived at nor any offence compounded
by any authority without prior leave of this Court.
We may add that on account of the great public interest
involved in this matter, the CBI and other Government agencies
must expedite their action to complete the task and prevent pendency of this matter beyond the period necessary. It is needless to
observe that the resuits achieved so far do not match the available
time and opportunity for a full investigation ever since the matter
came to light. It is of utmost national significance that no further
time is lost in completion of the task."
Relevant .portions of other significant orders dated 1.3.1996 reported in [ 1997]
H 4 sec 778 and 9.7.1997 [reported in 1997 5 Scale 254] read as under :
VINEETv. u.o.qVERMA, CJ.)
607
Order dated 01.03.1996:
V. Oiminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1153-5611996:
We have heard Shri Anil Diwan and the learned Solicitor
General. Insofar as the larger relief of suitable guidelines is sought
therein, that matter is deferred for consideration at the appropriate
later stage of these proceedings. As for the interim relief claimed
in the application, it is sufficient for us to direct as stated hereafter.
To eliminate any impression of bias and avoid erosion of
credibility of the investigations being made by the C.B.I. and any
reasonable impression of lack of fairness and objectivity therein,
it is directed that the C.B.L would not take any instructions from,
report to, or furnish any particulars thereof to any authority personally interested in or likely to be affected by the outcome of the
investigations into any accusation. This direction applies even in
relation to any authority which exercises administrative control
over the C.B.L by virtue of the office he holds, without any
exception. We may add that this also accords with what the
Learned Solicitor General has very fairly submitted before us about
the mode of functioning o[ the C.BJ. in this matter.
We also place on record the further statement made by the
learned Solicitor General on instructions from the C.B.L Director that
neither the C.BJ. Director nor any of his officers has been reporting
to any authority about any particulars relating to these investigations.
No further direction in this behalf is necessary at this stage."
Order dated 09.07.1997:
"The question pertaining to interference with or shifting of any
of the officer in any of the investigative teams of the C.BJ. or any
other connected investigative agency such as the Enforcement
Directorate in the several matters under investigation by them
which are being monitored by this Court and some c>f the High
Courts, is under consideration by this Court in this matter which
is being heard by a 3-Judge Bench and for this reason the same
question even though raised in some other pending matters in this
Court is not being considered therein. It is, therefore, inapA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
I3
c
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
'
propriate that the same question or any question connected with
it in any manner be entertained or dealt with by any other court
including any High Court in any of the matters before it. It has
become necessary to say so in view of the fact that we are informed
that the same question in different forms is being raised in some other
courts including High Courts by different persons. The question being
comprehensively dealt with by this 3-Judge Bench in this matter by
this Court, we make it clear that no other court including any High
Court will entertain or deal with the same in any direct or indirect
manner. Such a course is essential in public interest.
It is significant that the machinery of investigation started moving as
a result of these orders and after investigation of the allegations made
against several persons on the basis of the contents of the Jain Diaries,
chargesheets were filed in the competent court in the first instance against
D 14 persons, as reported to the court on 22.2.1996. Chargesheets against
many other persons were filed in the competent court thereafter as
reported later from time to time. In all, 34 chargesheets against 54 persons
have been filed on this basis. Thus, as indicated earlier, the purpose of
these proceedings to the extent to the complaint of inertia of the investigating agencies come to an end with the filing of these chargesheets, since the
E merits of the accusation against each individual has, thereafter, to be
considered and dealt with by the competent court at the trial, in accordance with law. Trial in the competent court is now a separate proceeding.
F
After the commencement of these proceedings, some other matters
of a similar nature came to this Court in which the inaction of the
investigating agencies to investigate into some serious offences was alleged.
Two such significant matters are Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 1995 -
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. U11io11 of India a11d Others - and Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 38 of 1997 - Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Director, CBI & Ors.
These cases revealed a serious situation eroding the rule of law, where the
G accusation was against persons holding high offices and wielding power.
H
Relevant portions of some significant orders made in the above two cases
read as under :-
A1mkul Chandra Pradhan
Order dated 12.02.1996 frepo1ted in ( 1996} 3 Scale SP 35 J:
r
I
'
_,
••
VINEETv. U.0.1.[VERMA, CJ.]
609
"We do not consider it appropriate to permit any intervention
in this matter. Shri Anil Diwan has been requested by us to appear
as Amicus Cwiae in this matter. He has kindly agreed to do so. It
is open to anyone who so desires, to assist Shri Anil Diwan and to
make available to him whatever material he chooses to rely on in
public interest to enable Shri .Diwan to effectively and properly
discharge functions as Amiciis Cwiae. Except for this mode of
assistance to the learned Amicus Cwiae, we do not permit any
person either to be impleaded as party or to appear as an intervenor. In our opinion, this is necessary for expeditious disposal of
the matter and to avoid the focus on the crux of the matter getting
diffused in the present case by the appearance of many persons
acting independently in the garb of public interest.
Order dated 02.04.1996
Learned S.G. as well as Shri Anil Diwan, learned counsel, are
heard. The Secretary, Revenue Shri Sivaraman, the C.B.I. Director
- Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao and the Commissioner of Police - Shri
Nikhil Kumar are also present. We direct that from now each of
these three officers would be overall incharge of the investigations
which arc being carried OI' by their respective departments pertaining to the matters within the scope of this Writ Petition.
Learned S.G. on instructions prayed for deferring the further
hearing to enable the above officers to report the progress made
in the investigations by these agencies on the next date."
Order dated 07.10.1996 [rep01ted in [ 1996} 6 SCC 354]:
In accordance with the directions so given, it has been reported
to us that chargesheets have been filed by the C.B.I. in two cases
and the Delhi Police in one case which they were investigating.
These cases are :
(1)
St. Kitts' Forgery Case
(Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
610
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
(2)
Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating Case
( Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)
(3)
Rajendra Jain Case
( Chargesheet filed by Delhi Police)
In view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed under Section
173 Criminal Procedure Code in each of the above three cases in
the competent court, it is that court which is now to deal with the
case on merits, in accordance with law. Any direction considered
necessary for further investigation, if any, or to proceed against any
other person who also appears to have committed any offence in that
transaction, is within the domain of the concerned court according to
the procedure prescribed by law. The purpose of this proceeding is
to command performance of the duty under law to properly investigate into the accusation of commission of the crime and to file a
chargesheet in the competent court, if a prim a f acie case is made
out. This purpose has been served in the above three cases, in
respect of which no further action in this proceeding is called for.
Accordingly, this proceeding has come to an end, in so far as
it relates to the above three criminal cases. Fo.r the remaining part,
it is to continue till the end result prescribed by law is achieved.
The concerned court in which the chargesheet has been filed has
to proceed entirely in accordance with law without the slightest
impression that there is any parallel proceeding in respect of the
same matter pending in this court.
We may also observe, that the concerned court dealing with
the above matters has to bear in mind that utmost expedition in
• the trial and its early conclusion is necessary for the ends of justice
and credibility of the judicial process. Unless prevented by any
dilatory tactics of the accused, all trials of this kind involving public
men should be concluded most expeditiously, preferably within
three months of commencement of the trial. This is also the
requirement of speedy trial read into Article 21.
A note of caution may be appropriate. No occasion should arise
for an impression that the publicity attaching to these matters has
H
tended to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and
·-
VINEETv. U.O.I.[VERMA, CJ.]
611
the basic principles of jurisprudence"including the presumption of
innocence of the accused unless found guilty at the end of the trial.
This requirement, undoubtedly has to be kept in view during the
entire trial. It is reiterated, that any observation made by this Court
for the purpose of the proceedings pending here has no bearing
on the merits of the accusation, and is not to influence the trial in
any manner. Care must be taken to ensure that the credibility of
the judicial process is not undermined in any manner.
This proceeding is to continue in respect of the remaining
matter only which are incomplete.
D1: Subramaniam Swamy
Order dated 24.02.1997:
It is also made clear to the petitioner that the petition having
been entertained as a public interest litigation in view of the public
interest involved, the locus of the petitioner is confined only to
assisting the court through amicus curiae appointed by the court
and that the petitioner has no independent or additional right in
the conduct or hearing of the proceedings hereafter.
We request Shri Anil B. Divan, Sr. Advocate to appear as
amicus cwiae in this case ...... "
Order dated 18.03.1997:
In accordance with the practice followed by the Court in other
similar pending matters, we also direct that any person wishing to
bring any material or point before this Court for consideration in
this behalf may do so by furnishing the same to Shri Anil B. Divan,
the learned amicus curiae who would take the necessary steps in
accordance with the need and relevance thereof, to place it before
this Court in this proceeding."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A /11-cainera proceedings
During the monitoring of the investigations, the Solicitor
General/ Attorney General, from time to time, reported the progress made
during the course of investigation, in order to satisfy us that the agencies
B were not continuing to drag their feet and the "continuing mandamu~" was
having the effect of making the agencies perform their statutory function.
The procedure adopted by us was merely to• hear what they had to report
or the CBI Director and the Revenue Secretary had to tell us to be satisfied
that the earlier inaction was not persisting. We maintained this stance
throughout.