LexVINEET NARAIN AND ORS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VINEET NARAIN AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
DECEMBER 18, 1997
(J.S. VERMA, CJ, S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, J.J.]
B
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Ss. 3, 4( 1 )-Single Direc-
tive No. 4. 7(3 )-Powers of investigation of the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI)-Requirement of prior sanction of Secretary of concerned Ministry
before any enquiry is instituted against officials at decision-making levels of C
govemment-Validity of-Held, Single Directive strnck down as not valid-Not
pennissible as exercise of power of superintendence of Central Govemment
under s.4(1) DSPE Act-Fwther held, power of CBI to investigate offences
cannot be cwtailed by executive instmction-Police Act 1861, s.3.
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 32, 141, 142 and 144--lssuing D
guidelines and consequential directions-Justification f 01~Held, where there
is inaction by executive to issue orders to fill vacuum in legislation, judiciary
must step in to provide solution till such time legislature acts-Guildelines
and Directions having force of law issued.
Public Interest Litigation---Co11stitutio11 of India A1ticles 32, 142--Con-
tirming mandamus-Concept explained-Practice and Procedure.
Practice and Procedure-In camera proceedings-Need for--Ex-
plai11ed-Constitutio11 of India, Articles 32, 142.
l11te1pretation of Statutes-Hannonious const111ction-'Supe1intend-
e11ce' in s.4( 1) DSPE Act, 1946 cannot be constrned in wider sense to pennit
supe1vision of CBI's investigation contlary to manner provided by statutory
provisions-Words and Phrases.
Conse11nent upon the arrest in 1991 of AHL, alleged to belong to a
terrorist organization, raids were conducted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) on the premises of SKJ, his brothers, relations and
businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two
diaries ('Jain Diaries') and tw'l notebooks which contained detailed ac-
E
F
G
counts of vast payments made tu persons identified only by initials.
H
595
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
The initials corresponded to those of various high ranking
politicians, in power anid out of power, and of' high ranking bureaucrats.
The present writ petitions were filed in October, 1993, in the public
interest under Article :32 of the Constitution of India alleging that the
B government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities had failed
to perform their legal obligation to investigate the matters arising out of
the seizure of the Jain Diaries; that the apprehension of terrorists had led
to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal
means using tainted funds obtained through 'havala' transaction; that this
had also disclosed a nexus between 1101iticians, bureaucrats and criminals,
C who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, given for unlawful
consideration; that the failure to investigate was with a view to protect the
persons involved, who were very inlluential and powerful; that the rule of
law required that the government agencies be compelled to proceed in
accordance with law against every person involved, irrespective of where
D he was placed in the poliLtical hierarchy.
E
F
This Court passed a series of orders, through the device of 'continu-
ing mandamus', monitoring the investigation of the case by the CBI. This
resulted' in the filing of 34 chargesheets against 54 persons.
In its report submitted to the Central Government in October, 1993
the Vohra Committee painted a dismal picture of the powerful nexus
between the bureaucracy and politicians with the mafia gangs, smugglers
and the underworld. It rrecommended the setting up of a nodal agency
under the Ministry of Home Affairs for compilation of all information
received from the agencies.
In September, 1997 the Central Government appointed an Inde-
pendent Review Committee (IRC) which reaffirmed the need to restructure
the agencies with a view to improving their hitherto unsatisfactory perfor-
G mance. The IRC made several recommendations including conferring
statutory status on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). However,
the IRC accepted the legality af the Single Directive No. 4.7(3) whereunder
prior sanction of the Secretary to the concerned ministry had to be
obtained before instituting an enquiry or search against officials at the
H decision-making level of government.
•
VINEETv. U.O.l.
597
The Union of India informed this CouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.