http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/03/1997

BENCH: CJI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Ahmadi, CJI.      Democracy in  modern  India  is  on  the  threshold  of completing fifty years of existence. Milestones such as this have traditionally  been  occasions  to  embark  upon  wide- ranging assessments to survey the achievements and failures, highpoints and  pitfalls, as well as the future prospects of the institution  concerned.  In  our  times,  it  is  widely acknowledged that  democracy in India has not risen upto the high  expectations   which  heralded  its  conception.  Many reasons have  been advanced  to explain  the causes  for the malaise which  seems to  have stricken  Indian democracy  in particular, and  Indian society in general. The matter which we are presently concerned with professes to identify one of the primary causes for the present state of affairs.      The  genesis   of  the   controversy  relates   to  the constitution of a Committee by the Union of India on July 9, 1993, by  its order No. S/7937/SS(ISP)/93. An examination of the brief  order discloses  that the  Committee  was  to  be chaired by  the Home  Secretary  and  was  to  comprise  the Secretary (Revenue), the Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the  Director of  the Central  Bureau of  Intelligence (CBI), and  the  Joint  Secretary  (PP),  Ministry  of  Home Affairs. Later, the Special Secretary (Internal Security and Police) was  also included  as a  member. The erstwhile Home Secretary being  Shri N.N.  Vohra, the  Committee came to be popularly described  as the  "Vohra  Committee".  The  order further reveals  that the  Committee was  set  up  "to  take urgent  stock   of  all   available  information  about  the activities and links of all Mafia organisations/elements, to enable  further  action".  Based  on  the  findings  of  the Committee, the Union Government would then determine whether there was  a need  "to establish  a special  organ/agency to regularly collect  information and pursue cases against such mafia elements".  To this end, the Committee was declared to be competent to "invite senior officers of various concerned departments (Customs, Revenue, Intelligence, etc.) to gather the required  information". The  Committee was also required to submit its report within three months.      The Report  of the  Vohra Committee,  authored  by  its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Chairman and containing only his signature, was submitted on October 5,  1993. The Report is essentially a compilation of the responses  of its  different members  and  includes  the reports of  the secretary,  Research &  Analysis Wing (RAW), the Director,  CBI, the  Director, IB,  and the views of the Secretary (Revenue).  In  the  main  Report,  these  various reports have  been analysed  and it is noted that the growth and spread  of crime  syndicates in  Indian society has been pervasive.  It  is  further  observed  that  these  criminal elements have  developed an  extensive network  of  contacts with bureaucrats,  government functionaries at lower levels, politicians,  media   personalities,  strategically  located persons in  the non-Governmental  sector and  members of the judiciary;  some   of   these   criminal   syndicates   have international links,  sometimes  with  foreign  intelligence agencies. The  Report recommended  that an  efficient  Nodal Cell be  set up with powers to take stringent action against crime syndicates,  while ensuring  that it  would be  immune from being  exploited or  influenced. However,  no follow-up action on  the findings  of the Vohra Committee Report seems to have  been initiated over the two years which immediately followed its submission.      During July  1995, a  young  political  activist  named Naina Sahni  was murdered  and one  of the  persons arrested happened to  be an  active politician who had held important political positions. Newspaper reports published a series of articles on  the  criminalisation  of  politics  within  the country, and the growing links between political leaders and mafia members. The attention of the masses was drawn towards the  existence   of  the  Vohra  Committee  Report.  It  was suspected that the contents of the Report were such that the Union Government  was reluctant  to make  it  public.  As  a consequence  of   the  resulting   controversy,  the   Union Government agreed  to place the Report before parliament. On August 1, 1995, the Report of the Vohra Committee was tabled in parliament,  where it  became the subject of a prolonged, intense debate.      Shri Dinesh  Trivedi, M.P.  (Rajya Sabha),  who is  the first petitioner  in W.P.  (Civil) No. 664 of 1995, actively participated in  the debates  in parliament.  On August  16, 1995, he  made a  written representation  to  the  erstwhile minister  for   Home  Affairs   demanding  that   the  Union Government make  public the reports which were the basis for the  Vohra   Committee  Report,   and  that   the  names  of individuals who  would become  identifiable as  a result  of studying the various background papers. be released. He also alleged that  the Union  Government was  trying to  suppress these  background  reports  and,  without  them.  the  Vohra Committee Report was "baseless".      Being unsuccessful  in securing a satisfactory response to his  representation, Shri  Dinesh Trivedi, in conjunction with the  public Interest  Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC) and  the Consumer  Education and  Research  Centre (CERC), both  of which  are  nongovernmental  organisations, filed the  present writ  petition in  public  interest.  The following were  included as respondents: the Union of India, the Ministry  of Finance,  the Director,  RAW, the Director, CBI the  Director, IB,  and the  Special  Secretary  to  the Ministry of Home Affairs.      The petitioners  allege that  a cursory analysis of the Report reveals the following disturbing aspects: (1) several governmental  agencies   have,  in  their  written  reports, indicated that  they are  aware of  the vast local, national and international  links of  criminal syndicates;  (2) these links are  such that  they amount  to a  parallel system  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

government; (3)  the common  citizen is unprotected and must live in constant fear of his life and property; (4) even the members of  the judicial system have not escaped the embrace of the  mafia; and  (5) the existing criminal justice system is unable to deal with the activities of the mafia.      The petitioners  state that  since the  Report  reveals such alarming trends, it is of the utmost importance that it be made  the subject  of considerable  scrutiny. They allege that the  document tabled  in  the  Parliament  is  not  the complete  report   but  betrays   an  incomplete  substitute prepared hurriedly  for the purpose of meeting the demand in parliament and  suppresses vita  information  regarding  the unholy   connections   between   politicians,   bureaucrats, criminals and anti-social elements. They base this assertion on the  statement made  in the Lok Sabha, a day prior to the publication of  the Report,  by the  erstwhile Minister  for Parliamentary Affairs  that the Report extended to about 100 pages, and  the fact  that the  document placed  before  the House  numbered  only  11.5  pages.  In  this  respect,  the petitioners have also pointed out that the Report, as it was tabled in  Parliament, is  not in  the  form  of  continuous paragraphs; on  the  contrary, after reaching paragraph 3.7, the next  recorded paragraph  is numbered  as paragraph 6.1. The petitioners  further state  that the  Report  is  itself based on  a number of reports that had been placed before it and,  without   this  supporting  material,  the  Report  is incomplete. Thus  the genuineness of the Report was shrouded in suspicion.      The petitioners  aver that  the people  at large have a right to  know about  the full  investigatory details of the Report. Such  disclosure is  stated to  be essential for the maintenance of  democracy and for ensuring that transparency in government  is secured  and preserved.  Towards this end, the petitioners have urged us to direct the Union Government to make  public the  annexures, memorials  and  the  written evidence that  were placed before the Committee. A direction to  the   Union  Government  to  reveal  the  names  of  all bureaucrats, police officials, Parliamentarians and Judicial personnel against whom there is tangible evidence, to enable action to  be taken  in accordance  with law,  is also being sought. We  are also asked to direct the Union Government to present to us an effective package of the follow-up measures taken in  accordance with  law, is also being sought. We are also asked  to direct  the Union Government to present to us an effective package of the follow-up measures taken or that are proposed  to be taken with regard to the Report. Lastly, a declaration  to the  effect that Section 5 of the Official Secrets  Act,   1923  is  over-broad,  unreasonable  by  the formulation of  a Freedom  of Information  policy,  is  also sought.      On October  13, 1996,  a Division  Bench of this Court, while admitting  the present writ petition, issued notice to the Union  of  India  and  directed  that  an  authenticated version of  the Report  of the  Vohra  Committee  be  placed before it;  the Union  of India was also required to apprise the Court  of the  follow-up measures  initiated pursuant to the Report.      The case  for the Union of India has been made out in a sworn affidavit  filed by  Shri K.  Padmnabhaiah,  the  Home Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Successor- in-office of  Shri N.N.  Vohra. In the affidavit, one of the annexures to  which is  an authenticated copy of the Report, the Home  Secretary has  stated that  the copy of the Report which was tabled in Parliament was the genuine and authentic document. One  of the  other annexures to the affidavit is a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

copy of  the correspondence  upon this  aspect between  Shri N.N. Vohra,  the author  of the  Report and the present Home Secretary. In  his response,  Shri N.N. Vohra clarifies that though he  had access  to the  reports,  notes  and  letters furnished by  the Director,  IB, Secretary (Revenue) and the Director, CBI,  while making  his final  Report, he  did not consider it  fit to include them as annexures for the Report was meant  to be  a summary  of discussions  held and of the contents of  the documents  which were already on record. As for the  incorrect numbering  of the  paragraphs, Shri Vohra explained that it arose as a result of a typographical error committed by his stenographer and his own omission to detect and correct the error.      While apprising  the Court  of the  follow-up  measures initiated pursuant  to the  Vohra Committee Report, the Home Secretary, in his affidavit, stated that the Vohra Committee was set  up with a view to facilitating the establishment of a nodal  agency to  supervise and coordinate the functioning of enforcement and intelligence agencies towards controlling the crime  syndicates existing  in the  country.  After  the Report was  placed in Parliament on August 1, 1995, and as a result of  the views  expressed by the Members of Parliament during the  debates, the  Union Government  set up  a  Nodal Agency  on   August  2,   1995,  in   conformity  with   the recommendation of  the Vohra  Committee Report and was to be chaired by  the Home Secretary. The Committee also comprises the Secretary (Revenue), the Director, IB, the Director, CBI and the  Secretary (RAW). This Nodal Agency was assigned the task  of   coordinating,  directing   and  supervising   the activities of  the central  and State investigative agencies responsible for  controlling the  growth of crime syndicates without purporting  to be a substitute for them. Thereafter, the Nodal  Agency met  and considered issues of inter-agency cooperation and  support. At  the first meeting of the Nodal Agency, it was decided to hold a discussion with the leaders of different  political parties  with a  view to  evolving a code of  conduct for politicians and bureaucrats which would help expose  the links developed by the mafia syndicates. In this regard,  an All  party  Meeting  was  convened  by  the erstwhile Home  Minister on  September 15,  1995  which  was attended  by   parliamentarians   representing   the   major political parties.  From the  minutes of  this  meeting,  it appears that  several issues of grave importance relating to the findings of the Vohra Committee Report were discussed at length. On  January 5,  1996 the  Union Government  issued a further  order  appointing  the  Cabinet  Secretary  as  the Chairman of  the  Nodal  Group,  while  retaining  the  Home Secretary and all the other Members in the Nodal Agency.      The  affidavit   further  points  out  that  under  our constitutional scheme,  the maintenance  of law and order is essentially the responsibility of the State Governments. The role of  Central Intelligence Agencies, such as the CBI, the IB and  of the  Revenue Department  is,  therefore,  limited cases,  consisting   of  cases   transferred  by  the  State Governments to  the CBI, cases in Union Territories, and the cases being  investigated by  Central Revenue Agencies. Much of the  investigatory work  in the  country falls within the purview  of  CID  and  Intelligence  Agencies  within  State Governments. The  task of  the Nodal  Group  is,  therefore, limited to  ensuring that  the investigative  efforts of all these  separate  agencies  are  synchronized  towards  their smooth functioning.      During the hearing of this matter, we asked the learned counsel appearing  for the  parties before  us to  put forth their suggestions  in respect  of the  options open  to this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

Court. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the  petitioners contended  that the  plea of  the  Home Secretary that 95% of crimes are within the purview of State Governments is an attempt to dilute the finding of the Vohra Committee Report. He averred that the Vohra Committee Report essentially addresses itself to those cases which, fall, not within the Entry of "Public Order", but, instead, with those cases involving  narco-terrorist elements  and smuggling  of arms and  ammunitions into  the country,  which are properly and wholly  within the  domain of the executive power of the Union. Shri  Jethmalani urged  us to direct that the details of the  reports and  events mentioned in the Vohra Committee Report be  fully and  completely  disclosed.  In  his  view, setting up  a Nodal  Agency would  serve no  purpose for  it would be  as prone  to failure  as the agencies it sought to supervise had  proven themselves to be. Instead. he urged us to set  up a  Committee consisting  of two retired Judges of the Supreme  Court with  sufficient experience  of  criminal matters, to  probe into  the disclosures  that would be made consequent to  our directions; further legal action could be pursued by  this Court  once such  a Committee had submitted its complete  report. A  similar suggestion,  which was been canvassed before  us, if  for the establishment of a Special Authority, headed  by a  retired Supreme Court Judge, to get matters involving  the aforesaid nexus to be investigated by an independent  agency which would the empowered to exercise all the statutory  powers of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Such a  Special Authority would be able to launch  prosecutions  against  politicians,  bureaucrats, police officers  and criminals  on  the  basis  of  evidence collected in  the investigations,  for  offences  under  the Indian Penal  code and other penal laws under the prevention of corruption  Act. Thereafter,  it was  suggested,  Special Courts, could  be designated  to expeditiously  try all such cases.      We may  first deal  with the  assertion  based  on  the petitioners right  to freedom  of information.   It has been contended before  us that the citizens of India have a right to be  informed not  only of the contents of the report, but also of  the details of the various  reports, notes, letters and other  forms of written evidence that was placed for the consideration of the Vohra Committee.  In  modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have  a right  to know  about the  affairs  of  the Government which,  having been  elected by  them,  seeks  to formulate  sound  policies  of  governance  aimed  at  their welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognised limitations;  it is,  by no means, absolute. This Court has  had many  an opportunity  to express  itself upon this issue.  In the  case of  State of  U.P. v.  Raj Narain, (1975) 4  SCC 428,  Mathew,  J.  eloquently  expressed  this proposition in the following words:      "In a  government of responsibility      like ours,  where all the agents of      the public  must be responsible for      their conduct, there can be but few      secrets. The people of this country      have a  right to  know every public      act, everything  that is  done in a      public   way,   by   their   public      functionaries. They are entitled to      know  the   particulars  of   every      public  transaction   in  all   its      bearing. The  right to  know, which      is  derived  from  the  concept  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    freedom  of   speech,  though   not      absolute, is  a factor which should      make  one  wary,  when  secrecy  is      claimed for transactions which can,      at any  rate, have  no repercussion      on public  security. To  cover with      veil of secrecy, the common routine      business, is not in the interest of      the public. Such secrecy can seldom      be  legitimately   desired.  It  is      generally desired  for the  purpose      of parties and politics or personal      self-interest    or    bureaucratic      routine.  The   responsibility   of      officials to explain and to justify      their acts  is the  chief safeguard      against oppression and corruption." (Emphasis added)      Implicit in  this assertion  is the proposition that in transaction  which  have  serious  repercussions  on  public security, secrecy  can legitimately  be claimed  because  it would then  be in  the public interest that such matters are not publicly disclosed or disseminated.      The case  of S.P.  Gupta v.  Union of  India, 1981  SCC Supp. 87,  decided by  a seven-Judge  Constitution Bench  of this Court,  is generally  considered as  having broken  new ground and  having added  a fresh,  liberal dimension to the need for  increased disclosure in matters relating to public affairs. In  that case,  the consensus  that emerged amongst the  Judges  was  that  in  regard  to  the  functioning  of government, disclosure  of information  must be the ordinary rule while  secrecy must  be an  exception, justifiable only when it  is demanded  by the requirement of public interest. The Court  held that the disclosure of documents relating to the affairs  of State  involves two  competing dimensions of public interest,  namely, the right of the citizen to obtain disclosure of  information, which competes with the right of the State to protect the information relating to its crucial affairs. It  was further  held that,  in deciding whether or not to  disclose the  contents of  a particular  document, a Judge must  balance the  competing interests  and  make  his final decision  depending upon the particular facts involved in each individual case. It is important to note that it was conceded that  there are  certain classes of documents which are necessarily  required  to  be  protected,  e.g.  Cabinet Minutes, documents concerning the national safety, documents which affect  diplomatic relations  or relate  to some State secrets of  the highest  importance, and the like in respect of which  the Court  would  ordinarily  uphold  Government’s claim of privilege. However, even these documents have to be tested against  the basic  guiding principle  which is  that wherever it is clearly contrary to the public interest for a document to  be disclosed,  then it  is in  law immune  from disclosure. (Paras 73 and 74 at pp. 284-286).      What  then   is  the  test?  To  ensure  the  continued participation of  the people in the democratic process, they must kept  informed of  the vital  decisions  taken  by  the Government and  the  basis  thereof.  Democracy,  therefore, expects openness  and openness  is a  concomitant of  a free society. Sunlight  is  the  best  disinfectant.  But  it  is equally important to be alive to the dangers that lie ahead. It is  important to  realise  that  undue  popular  pressure brought to  bear on  decision-makers is  Government can have frightening side-effects.  If  every  action  taken  by  the political or  executive functionary  is transformed  into  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

public controversy  and made subject to an enquiry to soothe popular sentiments,  it will  undoubtedly  have  a  chilling effect on  the independence  of the  decision-maker who  may find it safer not to take any decision. It will paralyse the entire system  and bring  it to  a grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations almost enigmatic and we think the answer is  to maintain  a fine  balance  which  would  serve public interest.      This then  is the  test which  we must now apply to the facts of  the present  case. Having examined the copy of the Report which  has been  placed before  us,  the  allegations regarding its  authenticity, the  explanation  forwarded  in this behalf  by the  Home Secretary  and  the  copy  of  the communication with  Shri N.N. Vohra in this respect, we find that there  is nothing  on record  to raise a doubt that the Report, as  tabled in  parliament and as presented to us, is not genuine,  authentic and  unabridged. We  are of the view that the  erstwhile Minister  of Parliamentary  Affairs,  in making the statement that the Report was 100 pages long, may have been either misinformed or misled. That apart, there is no other  ground for doubting the genuineness of the Report. Since it  has been  tabled in  Parliament, it now enjoys the status of  a public  document. We  will,  however,  have  to consider whether  the supporting  material placed before the Vohra Committee  can be  disclosed for  the benefit  of  the general public.      The supporting  material consists of reports, notes and letters  furnished   by  the  other  members  of  the  Vohra Committee to  its Chairman  who made  them the  basis of his report. Before  taking a  decision on  this aspect,  we must record the perceptions of the author of the Report as to the manner in  which it was to be treated. We have already noted Shri Vohra’s  statement that  he had conceived of his Report to serve  only as  a summary  of the discussions and reports before the  Committee. In addition, the following paragraphs extracted from the concluding portion of the Report are also relevant for this purpose:      "15.1 In  the normal  course,  this      Report would  have been  drafted by      the Member  Secretary and finalised      by the  Committee. Considering  the      nature of  the issues  involved,  I      did not  consider it  desirable  to      burden the Members of the Committee      with any further involvement beyond      the  views   expressed   by   them.      Accordingly,    I     decided    to      personally  dictate   this  Report.      (Note that the Report is not signed      by the other Committee-members.)      15.2 I  have  prepared  only  three      copies of  this  Report.  One  copy      each is being submitted to MOS (IS)      and  HM,   the  third   copy  being      retained  by   me.  After   HM  has      perused this  Report, I request him      to  consider   discussing   further      action with  Finance Minister,  MOS      (IS)  and   myself.  The   emerging      approach could  thereafter  be  got      approved from Prime Minister before      being implemented.  At  that  stage      other concerned  officers would  be      taken into confidence." (Emphasis and comments added)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    It is,  therefore, evident  that  Shri  N.N  Vohra  had himself drafted  and signed the Report in the belief that it would be  read by  a select  few high-ranking  officials who would then take necessary action. It is doubtful whether the candour exhibited and the liberal mentioning of intelligence reports would  have been  forthcoming if  he  had  not  felt assured of  complete confidentiality.  Indeed, much  of  the information contained  in the  Report, which  has now become publicly available  might well  have adversely  affected the various intelligence agencies involved.      We are  reluctant  to  direct  the  disclosure  of  the supporting material  which consists  of information gathered from the  Heads of  the various Intelligence Agencies to the general public.  To so  direct would cause great harm to the agencies involved  and to  the conditions of assured secrecy and confidentiality  under which they function. Furthermore, it must  be noted  that not all of the information collected and recorded  in intelligence  reports is  substantiated  by hard evidence.  Often on  the basis  of unverified suspicion names  are  thrown  by  people  to  save  their  own  skins. Intelligence  Agents  are  not  obliged  to  adhere  to  the principles of natural justice before they compile reports of possible  suspects;   quite  frequently,   individuals   are shortlisted based  purely on  the investigators’ hunches and surmises or  on  account  of  the  past  background  of  the suspects. The  disclosure of  these reports  would lead to a situation where  public servants  and elected representative who, though  entirely innocent,  are compelled  by virtue of their  offices   to   associate   with   individuals   whose culpability is beyond doubt, will also find themselves mired in suspicion. Such a situation would, in the long run, prove to  be   disastrous  for   the  effective   functioning   of government. This is because it would make every governmental functionary  overcautious   about  taking  the  simplest  of decisions.      We may  now cite  an illustration  to give shape to the afore-mentioned apprehension.  In the  entire Report,  apart from the reference to mafia gangs of Bombay, only one person has been specifically named as being a prominent beneficiary of  the  nexus  which  is  the  focus  of  the  Report.  The individual concerned is a certain Iqbal Mirchi whose name is mentioned as  having been  disclosed by  the Director,  CBI. Shri Jethmalani  has objected  to this  lone  disclosure  by stating  that   when  the   government  sought   to   pursue extradition proceedings  against Iqbal  Mirchi in London, it could not produce even "an iota of evidence" against him. We think that  this assertion by the learned Senior Counsel for the  petitioners   themselves  adds  great  support  to  our apprehension  that   the  full  scale  disclosure  of  these Intelligence  reports  will,  in  the  absence  of  properly conducted   inquiries,    lead   to   the   harassment   and victimisation of  individuals who  might  well  be  entirely innocent of my blame.      Alternatively,  such   full  scale   disclosures  would undoubtedly act  to the  advantage of  those individuals who are actually  the central  figures in the nexus mentioned in the Report.  Warned in  advance of  their  complicity  being suspected,  they   would  initiate   rearguard  measures  to exonerate themselves.      We are,  therefore, of  the view that the disclosure of the supporting material placed before the Vohra Committee to the public at large would, instead of aiding the interest of the public,  be severely  and detrimentally injurious to it. In that  view of  the matter, we think there is no necessity for us  to express  ourselves on  the  constitutionality  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.      We may now turn our focus to the Report and the follow- up measures  that need to be implemented. The Report reveals several alarming  and  deeply  disturbing  trends  that  are prevalent in  our present society. For some time now, it has been generally perceived that the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and criminal elements in our society has been on the rise,  the adverse  affects of  which  are  increasingly being felt  on various  aspects of  social  life  in  India. Indeed, the  situation has  worsened to  such an extent that the president  of  our  country  felt  constrained  to  make references to  the phenomenon in his Addresses to the Nation on the  eve of  the Republic Day in 1996 as well as in 1997. The matter  is, therefore, one that needs to be handled with extreme care and circumspection.      The Report,  while recording the widespread development of crime  syndicates within  the country,  points  out  that under the  existing system,  there is  no provision by which the various  intelligence agencies  can coordinate with each other in  properly utilising the information relating to the links developed  by crime  syndicates which comes their way. Sharing of  such information  is rare,  and much  of  it  is discarded without  being put  to  any  productive  use.  The Report, therefore,  recommended the  setting up  of a  Nodal Agency to  which all  existing intelligence  and enforcement agencies (irrespective  of the  Department under  which they are located) shall promptly pass on any information relating to crime  syndicates which  they may come across. The Report also contains  recommendations as to the manner in which the Nodal  Agency   should  be   set  up   while  simultaneously emphasising the  need  for  ensuring  that  the  information available with  the Nodal set-up is used strictly and purely for taking  stringent action  against the  crime syndicates, without offering any scope whatsoever of its being exploited for political  gain. The  need for  complete confidentiality was also emphasised.      The  Nodal   Agency  set-up  by  the  Union  Government pursuant to  the Debates  in  Parliament  upon  the  Report, conforms to  the recommendations  contained in  the  Report. Later, presumably  to add  greater weight  to the  body, the Cabinet Secretary  was included  in the  Nodal Agency as its Chairman. However,  as we  have  already  noted,  the  Nodal Agency  suffers  from  certain  limitations.  Being  only  a supervisory body,  without having clearly delineated powers, it  cannot  effectively  control  the  pace  and  thrust  of investigative efforts.      We are  of the  view that the grave nature of the issue demands deft  handling by  an all-powerful  body which  will have  the   means  and   the  power   to  fully  secure  its foundational ends.  The Nodal  Agency, in  its present form, comprises senior  bureaucrats of the highest level. While it is suited  to coordinate  an exchange of information between different investigating  agencies, its  composition is  such that it  may not  be viewed  by  the  public  as  completely independent or  immune from  pressures of every kind. It is, therefore, not  suitable for  pursuing an  investigation  of this kind  and taking  it to  the state of prosecution where may be  nexus between  the persons  under investigation  and powerful persons  such as  those referred  to in  the  Vohra Committee Report.  In view of the seriousness of the charges involved and  the clout  wielded by  those who are likely to become the focus  of investigation, it is necessary that the body which  is entrusted  with the  task  of  following  the investigation through  to the  stage of prosecution, be such that it  is capable  of  enjoying  the  complete  trust  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

confidence of the people. Moreover, in view of the suspicion that those  involved may  well be individuals who occupy, or have occupied, high positions in Government, it is necessary that the  body be  able to  obtain the  sanctions which  are necessarily  required   before  any   prosecutions  can   be launched. In  the case  of public  servants,  sanctions  are required, for  instance, under  Section 197  of the  Code of criminal procedure  and under Section 6 of the prevention of corruption Act, 1947. The Nodal Agency, in its present form, may not command the confidence of the people in this regard; this is  a serious  handicap for,  in such matters, people’s confidence is  of  the  essence.  An  institution  like  the Ombudsman or  a Lokpal,  properly set up, could command such confidence and respect.      We are, therefore, of the view that the matter needs to be addressed  by a  body which  function  with  the  highest degree of  independence, being  completely free  from  every conceivable influence and pressure. Such a body must possess the necessary  powers to  be able to direct investigation of all charges  thoroughly before  it decides,  if at  all,  to launch prosecutions. To this end the facilities and services of trained  investigators  with  distinguished  records  and impeccable credentials  must be  made available  to it.  The Report, the  supporting material  upon which it is based and the unequivocal  assistance  of  all  existing  intelligence agencies must be forwarded to this body. In time if the need is so  felt, the  body may  even consider the feasibility of designating Special  Courts to  try those who are identified by it,  which proposal  may then  be considered by the Union Government. To  this end, and in the absence of any existing suitable institution or till its creation, we recommend that a high  level committee  be appointed  by the  president  of India on  the  advice  or  the  Prime  Minister,  and  after consultation  with   the  Speaker  of  the  Lok  Sabha.  The Committee shall monitor investigations involving the kind of nexus referred  to in  the Vohra  Committee Report and carry out the objectives described earlier.      Such a  direction by us would not be without precedent. In Balaji  Raghavan v.  Union of  India, (1996) 1 SCC 361, a Constitution  Bench   of  this  Court  had  recommended  the establishment of  a high  level  Committee  to  examine  the guidelines  relating  to  the  conferment  of  the  National Awards. (See  paragraph) 33  of the  judgment of Ahmadi, CJI speaking for the majority).      We dispose of the Writ petition in the above terms with no order as to costs.