UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SUSHIL KUMAR MODI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 24-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SUSHIL KUMAR MODI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 24, 1997 
B 
[.T.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : A1ticle 136 
State of Bihar-Scam--Order passed by Supreme Cowt-As a sequel 
C thereto writ petitions decided by Patna High Cowt--Obse1vations made by 
Patna High Cowt-Validity of 
Investigation-Monito1ing by Coult-Continuous Mandamus-Purpose 
of proceedings is essentially to ensure pe1f onnance of statutory duty by C.B.I. 
and other Govemment Agencies in accordance with law for proper implemen-
D ration of Rule of Law. 
State of Bihar-Scam-lnvestigation-Monitoring of by Court-Role of 
High Cowt in 111011it01ing-Differe11ce of opinion between CBI and other 
Officers during investigation-Held in such a case final decision should not 
be taken by the Director C.B.J. or any other officer but by Attorney General 
E on reference being to him-Personal presence of Director CBI during inves-
tigation-Held may be required only when it is essential for a purpose which 
cannot be served by presence of the other Officers of C.B.I.-However it is the 
duty of Director C.B.I. to ensure proper representation in the Court-Sugges-
tion by Hilft Court to Director CBI to consider desirability of not involving 
any Officer of Bihar Cadre in the investigation--Held such cbse1vation do not 
F 
G 
cast any aspersio;i on the Officers of C.B.J.-While monitoring the investiga-
tion process High Court should not enter into the me1its of any of the 
accusations. 
Union of India & Ors. v. Sushi! Kumar Modi & Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 500 
explained. 
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union uf India & Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 199; 
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India & India & Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 
354; R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1968) 1 All. E.R. 763; Vineet 
Narain & Ors. v. Union of India &Anr., (1996) 3 Scale (SP) 15 andAbhinan-
dan !ha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR (1968) SC 117 = [1967] 3 SCR 668, referred 
H to. 
490 
_. 
U.O.I. v. SUSHIL KUMAR MODI 
491 
CfVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 304-305 A 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.96 and 19.12.96 of the 
Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1617 and 602 of 1996. 
Ashok H. Desai, Attorney General of India, T.R. Andhyarujina, B 
Solicitor General of India and P. Parmeswaran, A. Mariarputham and 
Pallav Shishodia for the Appellants. 
Ram Jathmalani for the Respondent No. 1. 
Arun Jaitley, Ravi Shankar Prasad and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the 
Respondent No. 3. 
Basant K. Chaudhary, Prashant K. Chaudhury, Pramod Kumar, 
Gopal Singh and Ms. Vimla Sinha for the Respondent No. 2. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, P.K. Shahni, B.K. Chaudhary, Pramod Kumar, 
c 
D 
'-r 
Gopal Singh and Ms. Vimla Sinha for the Respondent No. 11. 
' --
B.B. Singh for the State of Bihar. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
Leave granted. This order has to be read in continuation of our order 
dated November 5, 1996 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 14164-65 of 1996, 
Union of India & Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi & Ors., reported in (1996] 6 
SCC 500. These appeals by special leave are against some portions of the 
orders dated November 13, 1996 and December 19, 1996 passed by the F 
Patna High Court in the same matter-CW.TC No. 1617 of 1996 with CWJC 
No. 602 of 1996-as a sequel thereto. The material facts need not be 
reiterated as they are mentioned in our aforesaid order dated November 
5, 1996. 
When the matter was taken up in the Patna High Court subsequent G 
to our aforesaid order dated November 5, 1996, during the further 
proceedings after our order, the High Court has made the two orders dated 
November 13, 1996 and December 19, 1996. The learned Attorney General, 
on behalf of the appellants, has iudicated certain portions of these two 
orders and contended that they do not match with our earlier order dated H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A November 5, 1996. It would be appropriate at this stage to quote those 
;1-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
portions of the two orders to which grievance is made by the leaned 
Attorney General. These are : 
· 
In order dated November 13, 1996 : 
P01tion 'A': 
"The Supreme Court has not laid down the modality of making 
reference to the Attorney General in case of difference of opinion. 
What if the Director does not make the reference on his own. 
According to us, this can be sorted out by asking the Director, 
. CBI, to submit the complete report( s) submitted by the Joint 
Director and/or other inve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.