COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 11-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l S.C.R. 1015 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Interlocutory Application Nos. 3 and 4of2017) 
In 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of2015) 
JANUARY II, 2017 
, [ARUN MISHRAAND_AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
In~estigqtion - Investigation by special investigation team 
(SIT) -Raids c01rducted in the Bir/a and Saharrr_Group ofCoinpariies 
- Seizure of incriminating materials - IA s filed seeking constitution 
of SIT and direct investigation against the various functionaries! 
officers stated therein and other entries on loose sheets - Held: 
Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not 
admissible uls. 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the 
transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value -
Court has to_ be on guard while ordering investigation against any 
important c.onstitutional functionary, officers or any person in the 
absence of some cogent legally cognizable materia{ - When the 
material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself 
irrelevant to constitute evidence and not admissible in· evidence, 
there_ is qpprehension whether it would ·be safe to even initiate 
investigation:_ T,here has to be some relevant and admissible evidence 
and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and supported 
by son_le other circumsta~ces pointing out towards the allegations 
leveled - In absence thereof, the process of /ail• could be abused 
against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and 
then no democracy could survive in case investigations are lightly 
· set in motion against important constitutional functionaries - On 
·facts, the materials placed on record either in the case of Bir/a or in 
the case of Sahara not maintained in regular course of busif!l!_§.S 
and.thus, lack in required reliability to be made the foundation of a 
po/ice investigation - In case of Sahara, Income- Tax Settlement 
. 
' 
. 
~ 
~-Commission recorded a finding that transactions noted in the 
documents were not genuine and thus, did not attach any evidentiary 
IOI5 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 l 7] I S.C.R. · 
A 
B 
c 
F 
G 
H 
value to the entries on loose papers, pen drive, hard disk, computer 
loose papers, computer printouts - Materials-in question not good 
enough to constitute offences to direct the registration of F.I.R. and 
investigation therein - Materials should qualify the test as per the 
Bhajan Lal's case - Thus, materials not only irrelevant but also 
legally inadmissible u!s.34, more so with respect to third parties 
and considering th~- explanation made· by Bir/a and Sahara Group, 
it would not be legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct 
investigation - IA 's dismis!ff!d -. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 34. 
Lalita Kumari v. Government ~f Utfar Pradesh and 
Ors. 2014 (2) SCC l: [2013] 14 SCR 713 - referred 
to. 
C.B.J. v. v.c. Shukla 1998 (3) sec 410 : (1998] 1 
SCR 1153; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal 
and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1991] 1 Suppl. 
SCR 387 - relied on. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutary Application 
-~ Nos. 3 and 4 of20l 7 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of20l 5. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
· Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Pramod Dayal, 
N ikunj Dayal, Ms. Paya! Dayal, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, 
. Advs. for the Petitioners. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Tushar Mehta, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, 
C. A. Sundaram, Sr .. Advs., Abhinav Mukherji, Ms. Binu Tanita, 
Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Raj iv· Rathore, M, .K. Maroria, Ms. S_ushma 
Suri, Braj Kishore Mishra, Amit Bhagat, Shekhar Kumar, G. Ramakrishna 
P~asad, Suyodhan Byrapanehi, Mohd·. Wasay Khan, Ms. Filza Moon is, 
Bharat J. Joshi, Jagat Ar6ra, Raj at Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora," Anuvrat 
Sharma; Cb.ir11g..Shroff, Heman! Arya, Ms. Neha Shangaran, Advs. for 
the Resp6ndents. 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTHERS 
1017 
v. UNION OF lNDIA AND OTHERS 
The following.Order of the Court was delivered: 
A 
ORDER 
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, as to 
Interlocutory Application Nos. 3 and 4 of2017 filed in 'Nrit Petition( Civil) 
No.505 of2015. 
2. The writ petition has been filed by the Common Caus.e (A 
registered Society) and othersfor issuance of appropriate.writ for setting 
aside the appointment made by the Union oflndia, of Respondent No.2 
Mr. K.V. Chaudhary as Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr. T.M. 
Blil!sin as Vigilance Comm

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