COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 901 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
901
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 901
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2015)
JULY 02, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Judicial Review:
Writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution – Challenging
appointment of respondent No. 2 as Central Vigilance Commissioner
(CVC) and of respondent No. 3 as Vigilance Commissioner (VC)
– Seeking quashing of the appointments on the ground that it were
illegal and void being violative of the principles of ‘impeccable
integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ – Held: Judicial determination
is confined to the integrity of the decision making process – If the
decision is influenced by extraneous considerations or selection is
made in breach of the statute or rules, it can be set aside – It is not
for the Court to decide on the choice – Government is not
accountable to the courts for the choice made – Government is
accountable to the Courts in respect of lawfulness/legality of its
decision – In the present case, the decision to appoint respondent
No. 2 cannot be said to be influenced by extraneous considerations,
and choice of respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be such which is
amenable for interference by the Court in judicial review – Also no
case is made out with respect to appointment of respondent No. 3 to
make interference in judicial review – Constitution of India – Art. 32.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD:  1.1 It is alleged against respondent No.2 that he
had met Mr. Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director on 29.12.2013 and
20.4.2014 for 15 minutes on earlier occasions and 8 minutes on a
later date. When the meetings were held, respondent No.2 was
probing the interception dealings of Hawala dealer Mr. Moin
Qureshi. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, was investigating Stock
Guru scam where senior income tax officers were involved in
which Mr. Sinha was investigating the role of respondent No.2.
It was usual to meet for Heads of various investigating agencies
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
in connection with official work. There being no other material to
substantiate aforesaid aspersions it is simpliciter an assumption
that the meetings took place with an evil design. The highest
officers might have discussed the other issues. There is no other
supporting material to substantiate the aforesaid aspersions. How
the help was extended, in what manner and in Stock Guru scam
there was no allegation against respondent No.2 in any manner
whatsoever. Thus, it is far-fetched to urge that the aforesaid
meetings were to extend help to each other. [Paras 66, 69][939-
G-H; 941-D-E]
1.2 With respect to Stock Guru, the investigation was made
not by respondent No.2 but by Deputy Director of Income-tax
(Investigation) and under Additional Director of Investigation,
reporting to Director of Investigation, Investigation-II, Delhi,
who in turn reported to the respondent, the then Additional D.G.
(IG) Investigation, Delhi. Such conduct on 6.2.2012 led to a
seizure of Rs.34.96 crores in cash. Initially, there was a complaint
by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal (who had nothing to do with this case)
that the cash belonged to various depositors and it should not
have been seized. On a case filed, the amount was deposited in
court as per the order passed by the court. Appraisal report was
prepared by the I.O. and sent to assessing officer who initiated
assessment proceedings. However, on 3.6.2013 the CBI started
an investigation into the conduct of the then I.O. of Stock Guru.
The name of respondent No.2 did not figure in the First
Information Report filed by the CBI. No wrongdoing, no
shortcoming was found by any authority in the action of respondent
No.2 when 13 allegations were made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal
against respondent No.2. The CVC, Department of Revenue and
Department of CBDT got the issues enquired and allegations
were found to be baseless. [Para 70][941-F-H; 942-A-B]
1.3 With respect to the allegations made by Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal, it was clear that since he was criminally prosecuted under
section 182 IPC and disciplinary proceedings, had been initiated
against him by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India at
the instance of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had deposed
against him in the criminal case in the court and once upon time
Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal had appreciated the gesture of
respondent No.2 it was clearly an afterthought for him to level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
903
the allega

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