SHAHID BALWA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 03-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 51 
SHAHID BALWA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 548 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and 142 - 2G 
Spectrum Scam Case -Day-to-day trial - Orders passed by 
Supreme Court in exercise of powers conferred u/Arts. 136 C 
and 142 of the Constitution, while monitoring the investigation 
of 2G related cases - If liable to be recalled - Held: The 
purpose and object of passing the impugned orders was for 
larger public interest and for speedy trial, that too on day-to-
day basis which is reflected not only in the various provisions 
D 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but also falls within the 
realm of judicial accountability - No reason to lay down any 
guidelines in a Court monitored investigation - A superior 
court exercising the appellate power or constitutional power, 
if gives a direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or E 
complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is not 
interfering with the trial proceedings but only facilitating the 
speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution 
- In the case at hand, charge-sheet was filed only in one 
among the various 2G related cases - The Supreme Court, 
while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial 
and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed 
as interference with the trial proceedings - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(d) - Penal Code, 1860 -
s.120-B. 
The CBI lodged FIR alleging that during the years 
2000-2008 certain officials of the Department of 
Telecommunications (DoT) entered into a criminal 
conspiracy with certain private companies and misused 
F 
G 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A their official position in the grant of Unified Access 
Licenses causing wrongful loss to the nation, to the tune 
of more than Rs.22,000 crores. Following that, the CBI 
registered what was described as the 2G Spectrum Scam 
Case under Section 120B IPC, 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 
B 
Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 was filed under Article 
136 of the Constitution, inter alia praying for a Court 
monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of 
Investigation (CBI) or by a Special Investigating Team into 
the 2G Spectrum Scam. This Court agreed for a Court 
C monitored investigation; and, on 10-02-2011, passed an 
order stating that since this Court is monitoring the 
investigation of 2G Spectrum Scam, no Court shall pass 
any order which may, in any manner, impede the 
investigation being carried out by the CBI and the 
D Directorate of Enforcement. Meanwhile, two separate 
notifications dated 28-03-2011 were issued in terms of 
Section 3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the 
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for 
establishment of the Special Court to exclusively try 
E offences relating to the 2G Scam and other related 
offences. 
On 11-4-2011, this Court inter alia ordered that any 
objection about appointment of Special Public 
F 
Prosecutor or his Assistant Advocates or any prayer for 
staying or impeding the progress of the trial can be made 
only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain 
the same and that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day 
basis. However, large number of writ petitions were filed 
G before the Delhi High Court praying for stay of the trial 
proceedings on one or the other ground. The CBI filed 
application before this Court for summoning the records 
of the cases pending before the Delhi High Court and 
also prayed for stay of all the proceedings of these cases. 
This Court passed order dated 09-11-2012 staying the 
H 
SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA 
53 
proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court. 
A 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present writ petition was whether the two orders passed 
by this Court on 11-04-2011 and 09-11-2012 in Civil 
Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred 
B 
on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the 
Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation 
of 2G related cases, were liable to be recalled, de hors the. 
rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the 
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the 
C 
Constitution, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the 
Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case. 
Dismissing all the matters, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The CBI as well as the Enforcement o 
Di

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