COMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 28-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 l S.C.R. 154 
COMMON CAUSE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1088of2017) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. I 946 - s.4C -
Appointment of respondent no.2 as Special Director of CBI -
Challenged on the ground that no decision was taken by Selection 
Committee in its meeting regarding appointment of respondent no.2 
on the post of Special Director of CBI and, therefore, order of 
appointment was illegal - Held: s.4C provides for procedure for 
appointment of Superintendent of Police - s.4C envisages that the 
appointment on the post of Superintendent of Police and above has 
to be made by the Selection Committee in consultation with the 
Director. CBI - There cannot be any doubt that ifthe statute provides 
for consultation with any person before making recommendation 
for appointment to any post, consultation with that person has to 
be made - The question of giving primacy to the opinion expressed 
by the person with whom the consultation has 10 be made depends 
upon various factors - If there is no Selection Committee and the 
appointing authority is required to consult with some other 
Constitutional/Statutory authority then the question of giving 
primacy to the opinion expressed by the person with whom the 
consultation is to be made exists - However. in cases, where a 
Selection Commillee has been constituted which consists of high 
officials and consultation has to be made with another person of 
the Department for which recommendation for appointme/1/ is to be 
made, in 1hat eve/I/, the consultation is only a process of discussion 
which has lo be taken into consideration while making 
recommendation by the Selection Committee - It cannot be said to 
have a primacy - In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection 
Cammi/lee held on 21.I0.2017. the Selection Commillee had 
discussed the note submitted by the Director, CBI and also discussed 
the same with him - The Minllles show that the Directo1; CBI had 
furnished a secret/confidential letter enclosing an unsigned note 
154 
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
155 
referring to respondent no.2 - The Committee had considered the 
A 
note and the matter was also discussed with the Director, CBI - The 
Committee found that there were no findings in the papers that the 
person mentioned therein is the same person under consideration 
for appointment and there is nothing about the veracity of the 
contents of the document - The Committee further found the fact 
B 
that the CBI_ itse(f moved the proposal on 06.07.2017 categorically 
mentioning that respondent no.2 is suitable to hold the post of Special 
Director, CBI - The Committee also held that no further verified 
material has been brought on record and the Committee decided to 
recommend the name of respondent no.2 for appointment as Special 
Director, CBI - The Committee has also kept in view the fact that 
C 
the Vigilance Commission does not take cognizance of complaints 
received just on the verge of appointments or promotions unless 
they are proven misconducts - The decision taken by the Selection 
Committee was unanimous - Once there is consultation, the content 
of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review though 
D 
lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope ofjudicial 
review - Further, even in the FIR filed by the CBI, the name of 
respondent no.2 was not mentioned at ail - Thus, lodging of FIR 
will not come in the way of considering respondent no.2 for the 
post of Special Director.. after taking into consideration his service 
record and work and experience - The Minutes of the Meeting 
(MoM) of the Selection Committee shows that the news items reported 
E 
in the print and electronic media that no decision was taken with 
respect to the appointment on the post of Special Director, CBI in 
the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 21.10.2017 are 
factual(v incorrect - Likewise, the statement of the Professor of the 
University of London reported in the Indian Express appears to be 
based on the newspaper reports which have been foiind to be 
·factually incorrect, and therefore, it has no substance -Appointment 
of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Special Director, CBI does not 
suffer from any illegality. 
Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others 
(2009) 8 SCC 273 : [2009) 10 SCR 921 - relied on. 
Vineet Narain and Oth

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