THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. versus ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 12-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
v.
ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3918–3919 of 2019)
APRIL 12, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959: Idol theft cases – Idol Wing of Crime Investigation Department
handling investigation, detection and follow up of such cases –
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the
State controlling and managing the temples, idols and artefacts –
Letter by Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
to Director General of Police pointing out various complaints of
his officers received by him against Idol Wing of Police – By G.O.
dated 01.08.2018, State of Tamil Nadu transferring all the under
investigation cases being investigated by the Special Team constituted
for Idol theft cases and all such future cases to the CBI – Justification
of – Held: It was known fact that there were allegations and FIRs
against few officers of HR & CE and complaints submitted by the
Commissioner against the Idol Wing of the Police ought not to have
been accepted outrightly without conducting any enquiry – Even if
there was some truth in the complaints made by the Commissioner,
the same ought to have been enquired and informed decision ought
to be taken by the Government – On a single letter of the
Commissioner suddenly no opinion could have been formed that
Idol Wing of the Department is not doing its job – Decision to
transfer the cases to CBI was hurriedly taken within one day on a
complaint received by the Commissioner without making any inquiry
and the decision of the Government cannot be said to be an informed
decision – When the matters pertaining to Idol Thefts were already
under investigation by SIT constituted under the order of the High
Court, it was appropriate that the State Government ought to have
apprised the Court before issuing any Government order for
transferring the cases – In any view of the matter looking to the
large number of cases of idol thefts cases and cases to come in
future regarding idol thefts, the CBI was not appropriate
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 771
771
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
investigating agency to be requested by the State – CBI itself has
expressed its inability to undertake such huge exercise – Thus, the
High Court did not commit any error in quashing the Government
order dated 01.08.2018.
Constitution of India:
Art. 226 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – Respondent no.
2-police officer, heading Idol Wing has been supervising Idol theft
cases and efficiently traced and recovered several idols worth
several crores – Direction by the High Court appointing respondent
no 2 after his superannuation to head a Special Investigation Team
(SIT) to carry out investigations and other functions, which can be
exercised by a police officer under CrPC – Sustainability of – Held:
Jurisdiction of constitutional courts u/Arts. 226 and 32 can be used
to forge new methodology to achieve the constitutional objectives –
For sufficient reason investigation can be handed over to a person
who is retired or no longer in employment – Government can issue
orders enabling respondent no. 2 to carry on functions as per the
direction – High Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 226 could
very well direct respondent No.2 to head the SIT to carry out
investigation and other functions after attaining the age of
superannuation – Thus, the directions of the High Court to continue
respondent No.2 in Idol Wing of CID after his superannuation is
sustainable.
Art. 226 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of, by the High Court
– Scope and ambit of – Held: Power given to the High Court u/Art.
226 is of very wide nature which does not contain any fetter except
self-imposed restrictions – High Court while exercising jurisdiction
u/Art. 226 shall not issue any direction which is contrary to law.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the letter dated 31.07.2018 by Commissioner,
HR & CE to Director General of Police, the Commissioner
pointed out various complaints of his officers which were received
by him in writing and orally. The Commissioner stated that HR
and CE Department is facing a crisis. The Commissioner wrote
to the Director General to ensure a fair and confidential
investigation and bring the culprits to book, without damaging
the reputation of honest officials and the Department. By a letter
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
of 31.07.2018 itself Additio

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