LexRAJESHWAR SINGH versus SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 1051 RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS. Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 224 of 2011 IN Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 DECEMBER 9, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.) A B Investigation - Court monitored criminal investigation - C Interference in - Prevention - Responsibility and duty cast on the court - Held: Is to-see that investigation is carried out in the right direction and the Officers entrusted with the task are not intimidated or pressurised by any person, however high he may be - On facts, the a/legations raised by the D petitioner in the contempt petition were of very serious nature - The petitioner invoked Arts. 129 and 142 of the Constitution to apprise the Supreme Court of the difficulties he faced while carrying on court monitored investigation - Powers of the Supreme Court in contempt matters are not confined merely E to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules framed thereunder - Constitutional powers are conferred on the Supreme Court u!Art.129 to examine, whether, there has been any attempt by anybody to interfere with an investigation monitored by the Supreme Court - Art. 142 also confers F powers on the Supreme Court to pass such orders as necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it - Any interference, by anybody, to scuttle a court monitored investigation would amount to interfering with the administration of justice - Contempt petition filed in the G case at hand perfectly maintainable - Notice issued to respondents to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against them for interfering with the court monitored criminal investigation - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.129, 142 - 1051 H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) and 2(c)(iii) and 12 - Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 - r.12. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the present 8 contempt petition has been preferred, was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India praying for a court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in what was described as 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to investigate the C role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister for DoT, senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and others. The Supreme Court after taking into consideration of the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as well as the findings recorded by the CAG agreed for a court monitored investigation. D Petitioner - the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate was invested with the responsibility and duty of investigating the 2G Spectrum case. He submitted that he was being personally attacked by the respondents E through various means so that he does not make further headway in the investigation. The question arising for consideration before this Court was whether there was any attempt on the part of the respondents to interfere and obstruct the F investigation conducted by the petitioner, which was being supervised and monitored by the Supreme Court. G Upholding the maintainability of the contempt petition, the Court HELD: 1. When a court monitors a criminal investigation it is the responsibility and duty of the court to see that the investigation is being carried out in the right direction and the Officers, who are entrusted with H the task be not intimidated or pressured by any person,, RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1053 however high he may be. Considerable responsibility and A duty is cast on the court when it monitors a criminal investigation. People have trust and confidence when court monitors a criminal investigation and the court has to live up to that trust and confidence and any interference from any quarters to scuttle that B investigation, has to be sternly dealt with. [Para 6] [1059- C-D] A/igarh Municipal Board and Ors. vs~ Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 98; Bharat Steel Tubes Limited. vs. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77; J.R. C Parashar, Advocate and Ors. vs. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate and others (2001) 6 SCC 735: 2001 . (2) Suppl. SCR 239; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 705: 2010 (2) SCR 1086 and Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and another (2010) 7 SCC 592: D 2010 (8) SCR 723 - cited. 2.lf the allegations raised against the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.