DECISION CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST HIGH-RANKING PUBLIC OFFICIALS...

DECISION CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST HIGH-RANKING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INDIA

1512
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
DECISION CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST HIGH-RANKING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INDIA
DECISION CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST HIGH-RANKING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INDIA

Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

AIR 1998 SC 889: (1998) 1 SCC 226

JUDGES: J.S. Verma, S.P. Bharucha and S.C. Sen

Date of Decision: 18-12-1997

FACTS:-

This case concerns the historic Hawala scandal in India, which uncovered possible bribery payments to several high-ranking Indian politicians and bureaucrats from a funding source linked to suspected terrorists. Following news coverage of the scandal, members of the public were dismayed by the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate investigations of the officials with the apparent intent to protect certain implicated individuals who were extremely influential in government and politics.  This litigation was the result of public interest petitions filed on these matters with the Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUE:-

Whether the power of judicial review can be exercised for activating the investigative process which is under the control of executive?

JUDGMENT:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there are ample powers conferred on it by Article 32 read with Article 142 to make such orders which has the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 and there is a mandate to all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution of India. This power has been recognized and exercised by the Court by issuing certain directions to fill the vacuum till the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. It is in the discharge of this duty that the Independent Review Committee (IRC) has been constituted by the Government of India with a view to obtain its recommendations and implement them by suitable executive directions till proper legislation has been enacted. The report of IRC has been given to the Government of India but due to certain anomalies, no action has been taken in this regard. It is safe to act upon the recommendations of IRC to the extent they are of assistance, but for the remaining area, suitable directions can be formulated in order to fill the vacuum.

The Court has observed that it has to be borne in mind that the purpose of these proceedings is essentially to ensure performance of the statutory duty by the CBI and the other government agencies in accordance with law for the proper implementation of the rule of law. To achieve this object a fair, honest and expeditious investigation into every reasonable accusation against each and every person reasonably suspected of involvement in the alleged offences has to be made strictly in accordance with law. The duty of the Court in such proceedings is, therefore, to ensure that the CBI and other government agencies do their duty and do so strictly in conformity with law. In these proceedings, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the accusation or even to express any opinion thereon, which is a matter for consideration by the competent court in which the charge-sheet is filed and the accused have to face trial. It is, therefore, necessary that not even an observation relating to the merits of the accusation is made by the Court in these proceedings lest in prejudice the accused at the trial. The nature of these proceedings may be described as that of “continuing mandamus” to require performance of its duty by the CBI and the other government agencies concerned. The agencies concerned must bear in mind and, if needed, be reminded of the caution administered.

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 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.

Certain measures by way of checks and balances were recommended by the Court in order to protect CBI from extraneous influence of any kind. It was observed by the court that, unless a proper investigation is done followed by a proper prosecution, the rule of law will lose its significance. Accordingly, directions were issued till the legislature steps in to frame laws. One of the points which arose for determination was the significance of the word “superintendence” in S. 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It was held that the overall superintendence of CBI vests in the Central Government. But once the jurisdiction is attracted by virtue of notification under S. 3 of the act, the actual investigation is to be governed by the statutory provisions under general law applicable to such investigation and the power of the investigator cannot be curtailed by the directions issued under S. 4 by the Central Government. The word “superintendence” under section 4 of the act cannot be construed in a wider sense and therefore, the Central Government was precluded from issuing any direction to the CBI to inhibit its jurisdiction for investigating an offence. The Conferment of jurisdiction is under section 3 of the act and the exercise of powers of investigation is by virtue of statutory provisions under general laws governing investigation of offences. It is well settled by the court that the statutory jurisdiction cannot be subject to executive control.

HELD:-

The Court stricken down the Single Directive No. 4.7(3) issued by the Ministries and Departments in the Central Government that required the CBI to seek approval of the Central Government before pursuing investigation against bureaucrats of the level of Joint Secretary and above on grounds that it violated the independence of the investigative process and issued certain guidelines to various agencies of the Government, viz, CBI, CVC, Enforcement Directorate, Nodal Agency and Prosecution Agency.

To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here  

To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NO COMMENTS