MOHAMMED ANIS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 16-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAMMED ANIS 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 16, 1993 
[AM. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 32, 142---Loss of lives in incident officially reported as en-
counters between U.P. Poh'ce and Punjab militants-Involvement of local C 
police a//eged-Cou1t's order for investigation by CBI-Writ petition by an 
Inspector in U.P. Police, not posted in the region, challenging validity of the 
orde1-Held, this Court has been conferred extra-ordi11ary powers by Article 
142 to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before irTlte 
powers cannot be limited or conditioned by any statutory provision-Order 
was made i11 public interest-Fair and impa1tial investigation by an inde-
D 
pendent agency is dema11d of public interest. 
In an incident which took place in Pilibhit district of Uttar Pradesh 
and was officially reported as 'encounters' between the Punjab militants 
and the local police, 10 persons were killed. The incident attracted public E 
attention at various levels. The kins of the victims alleged involvement of 
local police in the incident. Doubts were expressed regarding fairness of 
the investigation, inspite of the same being entrusted to an officer of the 
level of an Inspector General in the U.P. Cadre. 
An advocate practising in this Court filed a writ petition under F 
Article 32 of the Constitution alleging infringement of Article 21 and the 
related provisions. This court by its order dated 15.5.1992 directed the 
incident to be investigated by an independent agency, the Central Bureau 
of Investigation. It was clarified that the order was made in the interest of 
justice and no reflection on either the local police or the State Government 
was intended. Later,when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the G 
C.B.I. did not receive the desired cooperation from the local police as well 
as from the Home Department of the State, this Court directed show cause 
notice to be issued to to the D.G.P., U.P. and Secretary, Home, U.P. who 
in turn tendered unconditional and unqualified apology. On the statement 
made on behalf of the State that action had already been taken to comply H 
263 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl993J SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A with the order, the Court discharged the notices and disposed of the writ 
petition. 
B 
The petitioner an Ins1iecter in U.P. Police, filed the instant writ 
petition claiming it to be in public interest a11d in a representative capacity 
on behalf of the U.P. Police. He challenged this Court's order dated 
15.5.1992 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, destructive 
of the exclusive powers of the State of U.P. and in flagrant disregard of 
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended that the 
Court could not have passed the order since the issue regarding the power 
of a Court to order the C.B.I. to investigate an alleged offence without the 
C consent and orders of the State concerned is awaiting decision of a larger 
Bench of this Court. . 
J?istnissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Statutory provisions cannot override constitutional 
D provisions and Article 142(1) being a constitutional power cannot be 
limited or conditioned by any statutory provision. The provision under the 
Delhi Special Police Act, stipulating that the State Government's permis-
sion will. be necessary if the C.B.I. .is to investigate any offence committed 
within the territorial jurisdiction of a State Government, may be a 
E statutory obligation governing the relations between the Central Govern-
ment and the State Government but it cannot control this Court's power 
under Article 142(1). Besides, the statute does not prohibit investigation 
by C.B.I. but only requires certain formalities to be completed which has 
no relevance when the Apex Court makes an order in ·exercise of its power 
under Article 142(1). [270-A-E] 
F 
G 
Delhi Judicial Sc1vice Association, Delhi v. The State of Gujarat, 
(1991] 4.SCC 406 and Union Carbide Coi]m. etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. 
etc., [1991] Suppl. I SCR 251, followed. 
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., [1988] 2 SCC 602, inapplicable. 
1.2. Merely because the issue-whether a court can order the C.B.I .. 
an establishment under the Delhi Special Police Act, to investigate a 
cognizable offence comnlitted within a State nithout the consent of that 
State Government or without any notification or order having been issued 
H in that behalr-is referred to 

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