COMMON CAUSE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 23-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 556 
COMMON CAUSE & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(I.A. No. 13 of2014) 
IN 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012) 
JANUARY 23, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
. Investigation - Special Investigation Tea111 - Appoint111ent -
To investigate the abuse of authority co111111itted by the then CBI 
Dire.ctor (Sh. Ranjit Sinha) in order to scu/lle inquiries, investigations 
and prosecutions ,being· car,,ried out· by the CBI in coal bloc,k 
a/location cases -Held: In view of the Report filed by the Co111mittee 
appointed by Supre111e Court to look into the allegations against 
Sh. Ranjit Sinha, a pri111a facie case has been made out for 
investigation into the abuse of authority by Sh. Ranjit Sinha -
Therefore, Special Investigation Team is appointed to look into the 
· report and other relevant documents and to conduct an investigation 
- The Special Investigation Team led by the present Director CBI 
may take assistance of two officers of CBI no111inated by the Director 
with due intimation to Supreme Court - The Director, CBI would 
also take the Chief Vigilance Co111111issioner into confidence - The 
Special Public Prosecutor in the coal block a/location cases, would 
also assist the Director. CBI and the team on legal issues. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I. A. NO. 13 OF 2014 in 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of2012 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, A. Sharan, R.S. Cheema, Vikas Singh, 
Sr. Advs., Pr~sh&nt Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ajay Sharma, Gaurav 
Sharma, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Binu Tamta, MK. Marora, D, S. Mahra, 
Amit Anancl Tiwari, Sanchit Guru, Pushpendra.Singh, Ms. Tarannum 
: Cheema, Harinder ·Singh Bains, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Kapish Seth, 
Ms. Shilpi Singh, Chandra Prakash, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, 
556 
COMMON CAUSE & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Braj Kishore Mishra, 
Devashish Bharuka, Dinesh Kumar Garg, D. Mahesh Babu, E. C. 
. 
. 
Agrawala, Mishra Saurabh, Parijat Sinha, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, 
Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Mrs. Shally Bhasin, V. Shyamohan, Ms. Apama 
Jha, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mis. Dua Associates, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, 
Mis. K~ranjawala & Co., Mis. Khaitan & Co. Advs. for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. In our order dated I 4'h May, 2015 
we had held that it was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha 
(then Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI) to have 
met persons accused in the coal block allocation cases without the 
investigating officer being present or without the investigating team being 
present. We were also of opinion that in view of this, it would be necessary 
to enquire whether any one or more such meetings that Mr. Sinha had 
with the accused persons had any impact on the investigations and 
subsequent charge-sheets or closure reports filed by the CBI. 
2. We had requested assistance from the Central Vigilance 
Commission in this regard and during the pendency of the proceedings, 
we had also appointed a Committee headed by Mr. M.L. Sharma, !PS 
(Retired), former Special Director CBI and former Central Information 
Commissioner to look into the allegations and give us a report. 
3. Mr. Sharma submitted a report on 4'h March, 2016, a copy of 
which was handed over to the learned Attorney General with a request 
to consider the report and assist us as to the further course of action. 
4. Thereafter, we heard the submissions ofall the learned counsel 
including Mr. Vikas Singh appearing on behalf of Mr. Ranj it Sinha. 
5. We have perused the detailed report given by Mr. M.L. Sharma 
and express our gratitude to him for the invaluable assistance rendered 
by him and his team. We would not like to make any comment on the 
contents of the report but on a careful perusal thereof, we do think it 
necessary to accept the second prayer made in the I.A. which is to the 
following effect:-
"Direct an SIT appointed by this Hon'ble Court to investigate the 
abuse of authority committed by the CBI Director in order to 
scuttle enquiries, investigations and prosecutions being carried out 
557 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
by the CBI in coal block allocation cases and other important 
cases". 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
6. We have considered the issue whether an outside body of 
investigators should be appointed as the Special Investigatin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.