ALOK KUMAR VERMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309 of 2018)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 –  ss.8(1)(a), (d)
and 11 – Competence of the CVC and the Government of India to
divest the Director, CBI of all his powers, functions, duties,
supervisory role etc. without obtaining the prior consent of the
Committee constituted under s.4A(1) of DSPE Act to make
recommendations for appointment of the Director, CBI – Held:  The
long history of evolution has shown that the Institution of the CBI
has been perceived to be necessarily kept away from all kinds of
extraneous influences so that it can perform its role as the premier
investigating and prosecuting agency without any fear and favour
and in the best public interest – The head of the Institution, namely,
the Director, naturally, therefore, has to be the role model of
independence and integrity which can only be ensured by freedom
from all kinds of control and interference except to the extent that
Parliament may have intended – Such intendment would require all
Authorities to keep away from intermingling or interfering in the
functioning of the Director – In a situation where such interference
may at all be called for, public interest must be writ large against
the backdrop of the necessity – The relevance and adequacy of the
reasons giving rise to such a compelling necessity can only be tested
by the opinion of the Committee constituted under s.4A(1) of the
DSPE Act in whom the power to make recommendations for
appointment of the Director has been vested by Parliament – This
alone can provide an adequate safeguard to ensure the
independence of the office keeping in view the legislative intent –
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – ss.4(1), 4A, 4B –
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
CBI – Brief history of CBI – Origin of CBI – Police force in
the country was initially governed by the Police Act, 1861 – DSPE
Act was enacted in 1946 to carve out an exception to the Police
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 100
100
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
Act, 1861 – It is the DSPE brought into existence by DSPE Act,
1946 which today is known as the CBI.
CBI – Role of CBI  – Investigation of anti-corruption cases;
economic offences and ordinary crimes of special importance have
come to be vested in the CBI which exercises its jurisdiction in the
territory of all States and Union Territory with consent of State
Governments.
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – s.4A and
s.4B – Legislative intent of – Held: The clear legislative intent in
bringing s.4A and s.4B to the statute book is for the purpose of
ensuring complete insulation of the office of the Director, CBI from
all kinds of extraneous influences, as may be, as well as for
upholding the integrity and independence of the institution of the
CBI as a whole – If the legislative intent would have been to confer
in any authority of the State a power to take interim measures against
the Director, CBI thereby affecting his functioning,  surely, the
legislation would have contained enabling provisions to that effect
and consequently would have been differently worded and drafted –
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
Disposing of the Writ petitions and IAs, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no manner of doubt that the enactment
of the CVC Act, 2003 and the amendments made by the said
enactment, inter alia, in the DSPE Act (by Section 26 of the CVC
Act, 2003) are a sequel to the operative directions of this Court
in paragraph 58 of Vineet Narain. The mode and manner of
appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance
Commissioners as well as that of the Director, CBI as spelt out
by this Court in Vineet Narain has been scrupulously followed by
Parliament.  Parliament has also on its own in amending Section
4A of the DSPE Act by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
(Act No. 1 of 2014) has gone a step further to give effect to the
directions of this Court made in Vineet Narain  inasmuch as the
object for change of the Committee for making recommendations
for appointment of the Director, CBI has been stated to be the
necessity “to provide a High Power Selection Committee for
selection of Director of the Delhi Special Police Establishment”.
[Para 32][123-F-H; 124-A-B]
ALOK KUMAR VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Vineet Narain and other

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.