LexKUNGA NIMA LEPCHA & ORS. versus STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 787 KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA & ORS. v. STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 353 of 2006) MARCH 25, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation - Against Chief Minister - By persons belonging C to political parties - Alleging possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income and criminal misconduct - Seeking initiation of investigation by CBI - Held: The writ petition in the nature of PIL not maintainable - The status of petitioners as belonging to political party leads D to apprehension that the petition is not the result of public- spirited concern - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is violation of fundamental rights and not where statutory remedies are available - A/legation of infringement of fundamental rights in the instant case is vague - Alleged acts E cannot be automatically equated with violation of Article 14 - The alleged acts can come within the ambit of statutory offences under Prevention of Corruption Act - Proceedings can be brought before writ court only on exhaustion of ordinary remedies - Court cannot in exercise of jurisdiction under F Article 32 direct initiation of investigation - The scope of intervention by court of first instance is controlled by statutory provisions i.e. Cr.P.C. - Direction for initiation of investigation by the Highest Court would also prejudice the accused -Even otherwise, High Court is the more appropriate forum for examining the a/legations in the instant case - Public Interest G Litigation - Investigation - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Locus Standi. 787 H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A The present writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging that respondent No. 2 (Chief Minister of the State) has misused public office to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income; and B also misappropriated public money. The writ petitioner sought writ in the nature of Mandamus directing CBI to investigate the awarding of Goverr:iment contracts and/ or work orders by respondent-State during the tenure of respondent No. 2 as the Chief Minister. The petitioner also c sought CBI Investigation against respondent No. 2, his relatives and other guilty officials. D Petitioner No. 3 sought permission to withdraw from the proceedings stating that he filed the writ petition at the instance of former Chief Minister of the State. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The fact that this petition was instituted at the initiative of four individuals belonging to a political E party raises the apprehension that they were motivated by a sense of political rivalry rather than a public-spirited concern about the misuse of office by the incumbent Chief Minister. The writ jurisdiction exercised by Supreme Court cannot be turned into an instrument of such partisan considerations. However, even if the locus F standi of the petitioners is accepted, keeping in mind that allegations of corruption on the part of the incumbent Chief Minister do touch on public interest, Supreme Court is not the appropriate forum for seeking the initiation of G investigation. [Para 7] [794-F-G] 2. It is true that this Court has copious powers under Article 32 of the Constitution for the purpose of enforcing the rights enshrined in Part Ill of the Constitution. However, the remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction H are of an extraordinary nature. They cannot be granted KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA & ORS. v. STATE OF SIKKIM 789 & ORS. B as a matter of due course to provide redressal in A situations where statutory remedies are available. It is quite evident that the onus is on the petitioners to demonstrate a specific violation. of any of the fundamental rights in order to seek relief under writ jurisdiction. In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of 'equal protection before the law' or 'equality before the law' is violated if there is an unreasonable discrimination between two or c more individuals or between two or more classes of persons. The alleged acts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.