LexE. SIVAKUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
E. SIVAKUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13817 of 2018)
MAY 18, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Investigation: Transfer of investigation to CBI – The petitioner
posted in the Ministry of Health was allegedly involved in the illegal
manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala and named as an
accused in the FIR – The stated crime was being investigated by the
State Vigilance Commission, constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu,
headed by a Vigilance Commissioner – Writ of mandamus issued by
High Court to transfer the investigation to CBI – Petitioner
challenged writ of mandamus on four counts – First, that the prayer
for transfer of investigation of the crime in question to the CBI was
already considered and negatived by the Coordinate Bench of the
same High Court – Second, the petitioner though named as an
accused in the FIR was not given an opportunity of hearing nor
was made a party in the public interest litigation in which the
impugned judgment was passed and third, the writ petition filed as
public interest litigation was politically motivated having been filed
by a member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu
– Held: High Court was alive to the fact that the Coordinate Bench
of the same High Court had occasion to decide writ petition – The
Coordinate Bench had noted that the investigation of the crime was
in progress and that it was not necessary to transfer the inquiry/
investigation to CBI – These aspects were duly taken note of in the
impugned judgment – Thus, it is not a case of disregarding the
binding decision or precedent of the Coordinate Bench of the same
High Court – Secondly, the question regarding the necessity to
ensure a fair and impartial investigation of the crime, for instilling
confidence in the minds of the victims as well as public at large, the
High Court predicated that it was but necessary to entrust the
investigation of such a crime to CBI – Viewed thus, there is no
infirmity in the conclusion reached by the High Court for having
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 522
522
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
entrusted the investigation to CBI – By entrusting the investigation
to CBI which, was imperative in the peculiar facts of the present
case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in
the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, is of no avail –
That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as
a nullity – Regarding last contention, the political opponents play
an important role both inside and outside the House and are the
watchdogs of the Government in power – They are the mouthpiece
to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and
unbiasedly projected – High Court noted in the impugned judgment
that a petition filed by such persons cannot be brushed aside on
the allegation of political vendetta, if otherwise, it is genuine and
raises a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of bias in the
dispensation of criminal justice system – Accordingly, the ground
of challenge under consideration is devoid of merits.
Investigation: Right of hearing – A person who is named as
an accused in the FIR, who otherwise has no right to be heard at
the stage of investigation or to have an opportunity of hearing as a
matter of course, cannot be heard to say that the direction issued to
transfer the investigation to CBI is a nullity.
Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India and Ors.
(2014) 8 SCC 768 : [2014] 6 SCR 783 ; Dharam Pal
v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 160 :
[2016] 1 SCR 194 ; K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent
of Police and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 767: [2003] 5 Suppl.
SCR 610 – relied on.
D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K. Mohan
Krishnamachari & Anr.
(2009) 10 SCC 488 : [2009]
14 SCR 441 – distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors.
(2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 ; Dinubhai
Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2014)
4 SCC 626 : [2014] 3 SCR 932 ; Narender G. Goel v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 65 :
[2009] 8 SCR 1004 – referred to.
E. SIVAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 15 SCR 540
referred to
Para 3
[2014] 3 SCR 932
referred to
Para 8
[2009] 8 SCR 1004
referred to
Para 8
[2009] 14 SCR 441
distinguished
Para 9
[2014] 6 SCR 783
relied on
Para 10
[2016] 1 SCR 194
relied on
PExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.