CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 01-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 337 . 
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
AND REFORMS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 169 of 2017) 
DECEMBER 01, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA AND 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.J.] 
A 
B 
Public Interest Litigation: Abuse of process of law - Writ 
C 
petition seeking writ of mandamus to constitute a Special 
Investigation Team (SIT) headed by retired Chief Justice of India to 
investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of bribes 
for procuring favourable orders in a matter pending before Supreme 
Court - Plea of Union of India that petitioner is abusing the process 
of court and this very issue in an identical writ petition titled Kamini 
D 
Jaiswal v. UOI was considered and dismissed by this court on 
14. ll.2017 and, therefore, instant writ petition is also liable to be 
dismissed on this ground alone - Held: The FIR which came for 
consideration in the case of Kamini Jaiswal and in the instant case, 
is the same - The facts, the relief. the submission5 being same which 
E 
was in Kamini Jaiswal, no ground to entertain the instant petition 
was made out as the matter had already been decided· by this Court 
- The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, 
unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of 
the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an 
irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to 
F 
espouse the cause of accountability - The instant petition, in 
particulw; the manner in which it has been pursued without any 
remorse by questioning the decision rendere.d on the subject matter 
by this Court including the plea taken in the earlier petition is gross 
abuse of the process of court - Therefore, writ petition is dismissed 
G 
with cost of Rs. 25 lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner - Cost. 
Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India and Another 2017 
(13) SCALE 417 - referred to. 
337 
H 
338 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
2017 (13) SCALE 417 
referred to 
Para4 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No.169of 2017. 
B 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
K.K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, ASG, Shanti Bhushan, 
Sr. Adv, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Amiy Shukla, 
Ms. Surabhi Kumari, Shakti Vardhan, O. Kuttan, Devesh Agnihotri, 
Gaurav Bhatia, Advs for the appearing parties. 
C 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. By means of the present writ petition (public interest litigation) 
(PIL), the petitioner, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, 
0 
through its Secretary, has approached this Court seeking a writ of 
mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a 
Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of 
India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of 
bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter pending before this 
Court and take consequential actions thereafter along with a direction to 
E 
the Central Bureau oflnvestigation (CBI) to hand over all the materials/ 
evidence collected so far in the FIR bearing No. RCIO(A)/2017-AC.III, 
New Delhi to the SIT to be constituted by this Court. 
2. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the 
petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General appearing 
F 
for the Union oflndia. 
3. Shri Prashant Bhushan, referring to the FIR dated 19.09.2017 
filed by the CBI, New Delhi submitted that in the FIR names of various 
persons have been mentioned as suspected accused along with other 
unknown public servants and private persons. According to him, the 
G 
aforesaid FIR has been lodged regarding some criminal conspiracy for 
getting a matter pending before this Court settled. He thus submitted 
that one does not know how many public and private persons are involved 
in it and the matter relates to huge gratification for inducing public servants 
in a matter pending before this Court. He, however, emphasized that 
the purpose of filing this petition is not to name any Judge of this Court 
H 
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
339 
REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
but to protect the independence of the judiciary and in order to arrive at 
A 
an impartial investigation, this Court may appoint a SIT headed by a 
retired Chief Justice oflndia. 
4. Learned Attorney General for India, on the other hand, submitted 
that the petitioner is abusi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.