Sunday, February 5, 2012

No justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise the further investigation by CBI:-SC


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10660 OF 2010
CENTER FOR PIL & OTHERS                        .......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                        ......RESPONDENTS
O   R   D   E   R
1.           By this order we are disposing of the prayer made by the appellants for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out   by   the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   (CBI),   the Enforcement   Directorate   and   the   Income   Tax   Department   in   '2G case'.
2.The   writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellants   before   the   Delhi jHigh Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation   Team   into   what   was   termed   as   '2G   Spectrum   Scam' for unearthing the role of respondent no. 5 Shri A. Raja, the then   Union   Minister,   Department   of   Telecommunications,   senior officers   of   the   department,   middlemen,   businessmen   and   others was   dismissed   by   the   Delhi   High   Court   vide   order   dated 25.5.2010.
3.      The   appellants   challenged   the   order   of   the   Delhi   High Court   in   SLP(C)   No.   24873/2010.   By   a   detailed   order   dated 16.12.2010,   this   Court   granted   leave   and   issued   the   following directions:
        "(i) CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into various   issues   highlighted   in   the   report   of   the Central   Vigilance   Commission,   which   was   forwarded to   the   Director,   CBI   vide   letter   dated   12-10-2009 and   the   report   of   the   CAG,   who   have   prima   facie found   serious   irregularities   in   the   grant   of licences   to   122   applicants,   majority   of   whom   are said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to the public exchequer running into several thousand crores.   CBI   should   also   probe   how   licences   were      granted   to   large   number   of   ineligible   applicants and who was responsible for the same and why TRAI and DoT did not take action against those licensees who   sold   their   stakes/equities   for   many   thousand crores and also against those who failed to fulfill rollout   obligations   and   comply   with   other  conditions of licence.
        (ii)   CBI   shall   conduct   the   investigation   without being   influenced   by   any   functionary,   agency   or instrumentality   of   the   State   and   irrespective   of the   position,   rank   or   status   of   the   person   to   be investigated/probed.
        (iii) CBI shall, if it has already not registered first   information   report   in   the   context   of   the         alleged   irregularities   committed   in   the   grant   of licences   from   2001   to   2006-2007,   now   register   a case   and   conduct   thorough   investigation   with particular   emphasis   on   the   loss   caused   to   the public   exchequer   and   corresponding   gain   to   the licensees/service   providers   and   also   on   the   issue of   allowing   use   of   dual/alternate   technology   by some service providers even before the decision was made public vide press release dated 19-10-2007.
        (iv)   CBI   shall   also   make   investigation   into   the allegation   of   grant   of   huge   loans   by   the   public sector   and   other   banks   to   some   of   the   companies which have succeeded in obtaining licences in 2008 and   find   out   whether   the   officers   of   DoT   were signatories   to   the   loan   agreement   executed   by   the private   companies   and   if   so,   why   and   with   whose permission they did so.
         (v)   The   Directorate   of   Enforcement/agencies concerned   of   the   Income   Tax   Department   shall continue their investigation without any hindrance or interference by anyone.
         (vi) Both the agencies i.e. CBI and the Directorate of   Enforcement   shall   share   information   with   each other   and   ensure   that   the   investigation   is   not hampered in any manner whatsoever.
        (vii)   The   Director   General,   Income   Tax (Investigation) shall, after completion of analysis of   the   transcripts   of   the   recording   made   pursuant to   the   approval   accorded   by   the   Home   Secretary, Government of India, hand over the same to CBI to facilitate   further   investigation   into   the   FIR already   registered   or   which   may   be   registered hereinafter."
4.       In furtherance of the directions given by the Court, the CBI, the Directorate of Enforcement and the Income Tax Department have, from time to time, submitted reports showing the progress made   in   the   investigation   of   2G   case.   After   considering   the objections raised on behalf of the Union of India, this Court by order dated 11.4.2001 decided the issue relating to appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor.
5.       During   the   hearing   of   the   case   Shri   Prashant   Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants repeatedly made a request for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in   monitoring   the   investigation,   which   request   was   strongly opposed by Shri K.K. Venugopal.
6.       Shri Prashant Bhushan, submitted that keeping in view the nature of the case in which political and executive functionaries of the State have connived with the businessmen for causing loss to   the   public   exchequer   to   the   tune   of   many   thousand   crore rupees, some of whom have already been chargesheeted before the Special Judge, CBI, this Court should appoint independent persons for   assistance   in   monitoring   the   further   progress   of   the   case. Learned counsel submitted that the first chargesheet filed by the CBI   is   accompanied   by   documents   running   into   80,000   pages   and large number of reports have been submitted before this Court by the   CBI,   the   Enforcement   Directorate   and   the   Income   Tax Department   which   require   detailed   study   of   different   facets   of the   crime   allegedly   committed   by   large   number   of   persons   and, therefore,   if   a   group   of   independent   persons   is   appointed,   the monitoring   by   the   Court   will   become   more   convenient   and effective.
7.       Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the   CBI   argued   that   the   Court   should   not   entertain   the   prayer made   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   and   appoint   any   outsider   for assisting it because for the last more than one year the CBI and other   agencies   have   very   effectively   investigated   the   case   and filed two chargesheets. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Court has also expressed satisfaction with the mode and pace of investigation so far carried out by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, there is no warrant for appointment of any other person who may act as a super-CBI. Shri Venugopal emphasized   that   the   Court   monitoring   the   investigation   cannot issue direction regarding the manner in which such investigation should   be   carried   out   because   that   would   tantamount   to interference with the functioning of the CBI which is a statutory body   established   under   the   Delhi   Special   Police   Establishment Act,   1946   (for   short,   'the   1946   Act').   Learned   senior   counsel then submitted that even though under Section 8(1) of the Central Vigilance   Commission   Act,   2003   (for   short,   'the   2003   Act')   the Central Vigilance Commission has been clothed with the power to exercise   superintendence   over   the   functioning   of   the   Delhi Special   Police   Establishment,   it   cannot   interfere   with   the investigation   or   direct   the   manner   in   which   the   investigation should be conducted. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the   monitoring   before   this   Court   has   already   come   to   an   end insofar   as   the   chargesheets   filed   before   the   Special   Court   are concerned and in the midst of further investigation there is no justification   for   appointment   of   a   group   of   persons   to   monitor the investigation in the name of assisting the Court.
8.       We have considered the respective submissions. In  Vineet Narain's   case   (1998)   1   SCC   226,   this   Court   entertained   the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and ordered investigation by the CBI into what came to be known as 'Hawala Case'. After considering the reports submitted from time to time, the three-Judge Bench examined different facets of the need of an independent   agency   to   investigate   the   cases   of   corruption   by public servants and issued several directions concerning the CBI the   Central   Vigilance   Commission,   the   Enforcement   Directorate, etc., including the following:
      "58.   As   a   result   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we hereby direct as under:
      I. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND CENTRAL
      VIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC)
      1.   The   Central   Vigilance   Commission   (CVC)   shall   be given statutory status.
      2.   Selection   for   the   post   of   Central   Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the   Opposition from   a   panel   of   outstanding   civil servants and others with impeccable integrity, to be furnished by   the   Cabinet   Secretary.   The   appointment shall be made by the President on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee. This shall be done immediately.
     3.   The   CVC   shall   be   responsible   for   the   efficient functioning of the CBI. While Government shall remain answerable   for   the   CBI's   functioning,   to   introduce visible   objectivity   in   the   mechanism   to   be established   for   overviewing   the   CBI's   working,   the CVC   shall   be   entrusted   with   the   responsibility   of superintendence   over   the   CBI's   functioning.   The   CBI shall report  to the  CVC about  cases taken  up by  it for investigation; progress of investigations; cases in which charge-sheets are filed and their progress.
      The CVC shall review the progress of all cases moved by   the   CBI   for   sanction   of   prosecution   of   public servants   which   are   pending   with   the   competent authorities,   specially   those   in   which   sanction   has been delayed or refused.
      4.   The   Central   Government   shall   take   all   measures necessary   to   ensure   that   the   CBI   functions effectively and efficiently and is viewed as a non-partisan agency.
      6.   Recommendations   for   appointment   of   the   Director, CBI   shall   be   made   by   a   Committee   headed   by   the Central   Vigilance   Commissioner   with   the   Home Secretary   and   Secretary   (Personnel)   as   members.   The views of the incumbent Director shall be considered by   the   Committee   for   making   the   best   choice.   The Committee   shall   draw   up   a   panel   of   IPS   officers   on the   basis   of   their   seniority,   integrity,   experience in investigation and anti-corruption work. The final selection shall be made by the Appointments Committee of   the   Cabinet   (ACC)   from   the   panel   recommended   by the Selection Committee. If none among the panel is found suitable, the reasons thereof shall be recorded and the Committee asked to draw up a fresh panel."
9.        After   taking   note   of   the   directions   given   in   Vineet Narain's   case,   the   Government   introduced   the   Central   Vigilance Commission Bill, 2003, which was finally enacted as the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The preamble and Sections 3(1), 3(2),   3(3),   8(1)(a),   8(1)(b)   and   8(1)(e)   of   that   Act   read   as under:
       "Preamble: An Act to provide for the constitution of a   Central   Vigilance   Commission   to   inquire   or   cause inquiries   to   be   conducted   into   offences   alleged   to have   been   committed   under   the   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants   of   the   Central   Government,   corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies,   societies   and   local   authorities   owned   or controlled by the Central Government and for matters        connected therewith or incidental thereto.
       3. (1) There shall be constituted a body to be known as the Central Vigilance Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned   to   it   under   this   Act   and   the   Central Vigilance   Commission   constituted   under   sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance,   1999   (Ord.   4   of   1999)   which   ceased   to operate, and continued under the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions   (Department   of   Personnel   and   Training)   No.   371/20/99-AVD   III,   dated   the   4th April,   1999   as   amended   vide   Resolution   of   even number, dated the 13th August, 2002 shall be deemed to be the Commission constituted under this Act.
       (2) The Commission shall consist of--
       (a) a Central Vigilance Commissioner -- Chairperson;
       (b)   not   more   than   two   Vigilance   Commissioners   -- Members.
(3)   The   Central   Vigilance   Commissioner   and   the Vigilance   Commissioners   shall   be   appointed   from amongst persons--
(a) who have been or are in an All-India Service or in any civil service of the Union or in a civil post under   the   Union   having   knowledge   and   experience   in the matters relating to vigilance, policy making and administration including police administration; or
 (b) who have held office or are holding office in a corporation established by or under any Central Act or   a   Government   company   owned   or   controlled   by   the Central Government and persons who have expertise and experience   in   finance   including   insurance   and banking, law, vigilance and:
Provided   that,   from   amongst   the   Central   Vigilance Commissioner   and   the   Vigilance   Commissioners,   not more than two persons shall belong to the category of persons   referred   to   either   in   clause   (a)   or   clause (b).
8.   Functions   and   powers   of   Central   Vigilance Commission   -   (1)   The   functions   and   powers   of   the Commission shall be to--
(a) exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have   been   committed   under   the   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial;
(b)   give   directions   to   the   Delhi   Special   Police Establishment   for   the   purpose   of   discharging   the responsibility entrusted to it under sub-section (1) of   section   4   of   the   Delhi   Special   Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946):
Provided   that   while   exercising   the   powers   of superintendence under clause (a) or giving directions under this clause, the Commission shall not exercise powers  in such  a manner  so as  to require  the Delhi Special   Police   Establishment   to   investigate   or dispose of any case in a particular manner;
(c) inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference made by the Central Government wherein it is alleged that a public servant being an employee of the Central Government or a corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government company,   society   and   any   local   authority   owned   or controlled   by   that   Government,   has   committed   an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49   of   1988),   or   an   offence   with   which   a   public servant   may,   under   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure, (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial;
                (e)   review   the   progress   of   investigations   conducted by   the   Delhi   Special   Police   Establishment   into offences   alleged   to   have   been   committed   under   the Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   (49   of   1988)   or the   public   servant   may,   under   the   Code   of   Criminal
                Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial;"
10.               A combined reading of the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain's case (supra) and Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the   functioning   of   the   Delhi   Special   Police   Establishment   in matters   relating   to   the   investigation   of   offences   allegedly committed   under   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act   and/or   an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) of  Section  8  of  the  2003  Act  is  charged  at  the  same  trial  and give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under Section   4(1)   of   the   1946   Act.   However,   in   view   of   proviso   to Section 8(1)(b) of the 2003 Act the Central Vigilance Commission cannot,   while   exercising   the   power   of   superintendence   under clause   (a)   or   giving   directions   under   clause   (b),   direct   Delhi Special   Police   Establishment   to   investigate   or   dispose   of   any case   in   a   particular   manner.   In   other   words,   the   power   of superintendence   cannot   be   used   by   the   Central   Vigilance Commission   for   interfering   with   the   manner   and   method   of investigation   or   consideration   of   any   case   by   the   CBI   in   a particular manner.
11.            Although,   initially   the   CBI   may   not   have   taken   up the   matter   relating   to   investigation   of   2G   case   with   requisite seriousness, after 16.12.2010 it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation. Therefore, there is no justification to appoint a group   of   persons   to   directly   or   indirectly   scrutinise   or supervise   the   further   investigation   being   conducted   by   the   CBI and  other  agencies.  However,  keeping  in  view  the  nature  of  the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner   and   the   Senior   Vigilance   Commissioner   appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to the Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case. This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act.
12.            We, therefore, issue the following directions:
        (i)    In future copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted   by   the   CBI   and   other   agencies   shall   be   made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes.
      (ii)     Within   next   one   week   the   Central   Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine   the   report(s)   and   send   their   observations   /              suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be   considered   along   with   the   report(s)   of   the   CBI   and other investigating agencies.
13.              The aforesaid direction shall not in any manner be construed as a reflection on the integrity of the investigation so far done by the team of CBI and other investigating agency or   which   may  be   done  in   future  or   their  competence   to  effectively perform the job in relation to 2G case.
                                         ............................J.
                                              ( G.S.SINGHVI )
                                          ............................J.
                                             ( ASOK KUMAR GANGULY )
  NEW DELHI;
  FEBRUARY 02, 2012.

No comments: