LexLOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 299 LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. (CRL.M.P. No. 125554 of 2018) in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 OF 2018 NOVEMBER 12, 2018 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Extra-judicial Executions: Mandamus – Role of Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations in continuing mandamus – The instant writ petitions were filed by some police personnel of Manipur Police aggrieved by certain observations made in EEVFAM case and seeking mandamus for quashing the observations – The prayer of the applicants/petitioners was that in view of the observations made in EEVFAM case on 30th July, 2018, the investigations be monitored by another set of judges of the Supreme Court – Recusal of the bench was, therefore, sought on the ground that as a result of the observations said to have been made, the applicants had a real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial would be tainted to their prejudice – Held: The apprehension of the applicants/ petitioners that justice will not be done to them is misplaced – The purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure that there is no interference during the course of investigations from anybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any other pressure that could compromise the investigations – Yet another purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team does not deviate from the natural course of investigations for whatever reason, either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous reason – This is the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations in a continuing mandamus – Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to have been made on 30th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is erroneous – Observations made by any court cannot impact on the investigations as long as they are conducted by professionals – The SIT consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any observations made by any court during the continuing mandamus process – Mandamus. [2018] 14 S.C.R. 299 299 A B C D E F G H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. Dismissing the applications, the Court HELD: 1. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains to allegations of serious violations of the human rights of persons described as insurgents. A large number of such persons were killed in operations carried out by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police. Whether the death/killing of such persons was justified or not is a matter of investigation by the SIT. It was nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. During the hearing of EEVFAM and even after the decision was rendered on substantive legal and factual issues, no allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only at the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and that too on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by this Court. [Paras 20-21][312-C-F] 2. Once the judicial process has begun with the filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concerned court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings. No one can interfere in the course of judicial proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason that when investigations are complete and a final report or charge sheet is filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any further progress in the matter. As far as the EEVFAM case was concerned, there was no allegation of any kind that any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown a lack of independence. Interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour any apprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30th July, 2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps unwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of the judiciary. [Para 26][313-E-H] 3. There can be no interference in investigations and the courts cannot brook any interference in the judicial process. An A B C D E F G H 301 exceptio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.