LexAKHILESH YADAV ETC. ETC. versus VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 949 AKHILESH YADAV ETC. ETC. v. VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS. (Review Petition (Civil) No. 272 of 2007 etc.) IN (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633 of 2005) DECEMBER 13, 2012. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., AND H.L. DATTU, J.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 47 - Review C petition - Maintainability, scope and ambit of - Writ petition (PIL) before Supreme Court for direction to prosecute four members of a political family (respondent nos. 2 to 5) under the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring assets more than the known source of their income - Court directing the o CBI to submit its report with UOI and liberty was given to UOI to take further steps - Order challenged in review - Held: The order under review was neither irregular nor without jurisdiction - Supreme Court has jurisdiction to direct CBI inquiry in the matter - Review of a judgment is permissible on account of E error on the face of the record - Such error has to be decided in the facts of the case - An erroneous decision by itself does not warrant a review - The judgment under review does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record except F for the directions given in the case of respondent no. 4 - Investigation launched against respondent no. 4 liable to be dropp(Jd since she was not holding any public office or Government post, and was essentially a private person - The Court's direction to CBI to submit its Inquiry Report to UOI is erroneous since CBI is an independent body and not under obligation to report to UOI - Such a course is not contemplated G in the scheme of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act - Direction given to CBI to take independent action, as it considers fit - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 949 H 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 40 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 137 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Writ petition (PIL) was filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 before this Court seeking direction to 8 prosecute respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring assets more than the known source of their income, by misusing their power and authority. This Court by order dated 1.3.2007 directed Central Bureau of Investigating (CBI) to inquire into the C allegations relating to acquisition of wealth by respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and to find out as to whether there was any truth in the allegations. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed petitions for review of the order. o The main questions for consideration were whether the High Court or Supreme Court had jurisdiction to direct a CBI Inquiry and whether the investigation and/or inquiry could also be extended to the assets of respondent No. 4, though she neither held any post under the E Government nor was she involved in the activities of her husband or father-in-law (two other respondents). Disposing of the Review Petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 Review of a judgment on account of some F mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each case, as an erroneous decision by itself does not warrant a review of each decision. [Para 1] [955-C-D] G H 1.2 The scope and ambit of a review proceeding is limited and the order dated 1st March, 2007, in respect of which review has been sought, was neither irregular nor without jurisdiction and was passed after considering the submissions made on b'ehalf of the respective parties. AKHILESH YADAV ETC. v. VISHWANATH 951 CHATURVEDI The review proceedings cannot be converted into an A appeal. [Para 30] [969-B-C] 2.1 A direction by- the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction :.mder Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have 8 been committed within the territory of a State, without-the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, C Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. However, the power which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.