http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 39  

PETITIONER: VINEET NARAIN & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/12/1997

BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Verma.CJI:      These  writ   potitions  under   Article  32   of   the Constitution of  India brought  in public interest, to begin with, did  not appear to have the potential of escalating to the dimensions  they reached  or to  give  rise  to  several issues of considerable significance to the implementation of rule of  law, which   they have, during their progress. They began as  yet another  complaint of  inertia by  the Central Bureau  of   Investigation  (CBI)   in  matters   where  the accusation made was against high dignitaries. It was not the only matter  of its kind during the recent past. The primary question was:  Whether it  is within  the domain of judaical review  and   it  could   be  an  effective  instrument  for activating the  investigative process  which  is  under  the control of executive? The focus was on the question, whether any judicial  remedy  is  available  in  such  a  situation? However, as the case progressed, it required innovation of a procedure  within  the  constitutional  scheme  of  judaical review to permit intervention by the count t find a solution to the problem. This case has develop to develop a procedure within the  discipline of  law for  the conduct  of  such  a proceeding in  similar  situation.  It  has  also  generated awareness of the need of probity in public life and provided mode of  enforcement of  accountability in public life. Even though the  matter was  brought  to  the  court  by  certain individuals claiming  to represent  public interest,  yet as the case  progressed, in  keeping with  the  requirement  of public interest,  the procedure  devised was  to appoint the petitioners’ counsel  as the  amicus curiae and to make such orders from  time to   time  as were  consistent with public interest. Intervention  in the  proceedings by everyone else was shut  out but  permission was  granted to  all,  who  so desired, to  render such  assistance as  they could,  and to provide the  relevant material  available with  them to  the amicus curiae  for being  placed before  the court  for  its consideration. In short, the proceedings in this matter have had great  educative value  and it  does appear  that it has helped in  future decision  making and  functioning  of  the public authorities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 39  

    We must  at  the  outset  place  on  record  our  great appreciation  of  the  assistance  rendered  by  the  amicus curiac, Shri  Anil Divan  and  the  lawyers  assisting  him, namely, Shri  Abani Kumar  Sahu. Shri Anil Kumar Panda, Shri Mukul  Mudgai,   Shri  Anil   Nauriya  and  also  Ms.  Latha Krishnamurthy. We also place on record equal appreciation of the law  officers and  the team  which has  assisted them in these proceedings.  At the  commencement of the proceedings, the then  Solicitor General  Shri Dipankar P. Gupta appeared for the  Union of  India and  the government agencies. Later after Shri  depankar P.Gupta  demitted office,  the Attorney General Shri Ashok H.Desai appeared in this case throughout. The law  officers and their team of assistants, namely, Shri K.N.Bhat,  Additional   Solicitor   General,   Shri   Pallav Shishodia,  Shri   Parmeswaran  and   Ms.  Anuradha  Bindra, rendered very  able assistance throughout and discharged the duty expected of law officers. All of them at great personal inconvenience and  expence, rose to extraordinary heights in keeping with  the true  traditions of  the Bar.  In essence, everyone of  them discharged  the  role  of  animus  curiae, without, at  any stage,  adopting the adversarial stance. If it has  been possible  to  achieve  some  success  in  these proceedings  to  improve  and  innovate  the  procedure  and fructify new  ideas for betterment of the polity, it is only because  of  the  positive  response  of  the  Bar  and  the assistance  rendered   by  it.   We  must  also  record  our appreciation of  the officers  of the  CBI and  the  Revenue Department who  actively participated  in these  proceedings and showed a definite improvement in their perception of the rule of  law as  the case  progressed; and  their ability to perform improved once they were assured of protection in the honest discharge of  their duties.      This  experience  revealed  to  us  the  need  for  the insulation of  these agencies  from any extraneous influence to ensure  the  continuance  of  the  good  work  they  have commenced. It  is this need which has impelled us to examine the  structure   of  these  agencies  and  to  consider  the necessary steps  which would provide permanent insulation to the agencies against extraneous influences to enable them to discharge their  duties in  the manner  required for  proper implementation of  the rule  of law.  Permanent measures are necessary to avoid the need of every matter being brought to the court  for taking ad hoc measures to achieve the desired results. This  is the  occasion for  us  to  deal  with  the structure, constitution and the permanent measures necessary for having  a fair  and  impartial  agency.  The  faith  and commitment to  the rule of law exhibited by all concerned in these proceedings is the surest guarantee of the survival of democracy of  which rule  of law  is the  bedrock. The basic postulate of  the concept of equality: "Be you ever so high, the law  is above  you" , has governed all steps taken by us in these proceedings. Facts      A brief  narration  of  the  facts  of  this  case  sis necessary; On  25th March,  1991, one  Ashfak Hussain  Lone, alleged to  be an  official of  the  terrorist  organisation Hizbul Mujahideen,  was arrested  in Delhi.  Consequent upon his interrogation,  raids  were  conducted  by  the  Central Bureau of  Investigation (CBI)  on the premises of Surrender Kumar Jain,  his brothers,  relations and  businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two diaries and  two  note  books  from  the  premises.  They  contained detailed  accounts   of  vast   payments  made   to  persons identified only  by initials.  The initials  corresponded to the initials  of various  high ranking politicians, in power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 39  

and our  of power,  and of high ranking bureaucrats. Nothing having been done in the matter of investigating the Jains or the contents  of their  diaries, the  present writ petitions were filed  on 4th  October, 1993,  in the  public  interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of the India.      The gist  of the  allegations in  the writ petitions is that Government  agencies  like  the  CBI  and  the  revenue authorities had  failed to  perform their  duties and  legal obligations inasmuch  as  they  had  failed  to  investigate matters arising  out of  the seizure  of the  "Jan 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’ transactions; that  this had  also disclosed a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats  and criminals, who were recipients of  money   from  unlawful   sources,  given   for  unlawful consideration that the CBI and other Government agencies had failed to  investigate the  matter, take  it to  its logical conclusion and  prosecute all persons who were found to have committed and  offence; that  this was  done with  a view to protect the  persons involved, who were very influential and powerful; that  the matter  disclosed a  nexus between crime and corruption  at high places in public life and it posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation; that probity in public life, the rule of law and the preservation  of  democracy  required  that  the  Government agencies  the   compelled  to   duly  perform   their  legal obligations and  to proceed  in accordance  with law against every person  involved, irrespective  of where he was placed in the political hierarchy. The writ petitions prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:      "[a] that  the above  said offences      disclosed by the facts mentioned in      the  petition  be  directed  to  be      investigated  in   accordance  with      law;      [b] that  this Hon’ble Court may be      pleased to  appoint officers of the      police   or    others   in    whose      integrity.     independence     and      competence       this       Hon’ble      Court has confidence for conducting      and/or   supervising    the    said      investigation;      [c]  that  suitable  directions  be      given by  this  Hon’ble  Court  and      orders issued  to ensure  that  the      culprits are  dealt with  according      to law;      xx        xx             xx      [f] that  directions  be  given  so      that such  evil actions on the part      of the  investigating agencies  and      their political  superiors are  not      repeated in future."      It will  be seen  that the  reliefs sought  in the writ petitions fall  into two  broad  classes.  The  first  class relates  to  investigations  in  the  matter  of  the  ’Jain diaries". The  second class  [prayer  (f)[  relates  to  the manner in  which investigations  of offences  of  a  similar nature that may occur hereafter should be conducted. Procedure adopted      We have  taken  the  view  that,  given  the  political personalities of  the propel to be investigated in the "Jain diaries" case  and the  time already  lost in commencing the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 39  

investigation it  was advantageous  not to  hear the  matter through and  issue a  writ of  mandamus, leaving  it to  the authorities to  comply with   it,  but to  keep  the  matter pending while  the investigations  were  being  carried  on, ensuring that  this was done by monitoring them from time to time and  issuing orders  in this behalf. Our reasoned order are dated.   18.4.1995,16.1.1996  [1996 (2)  Scale (SP) 42], 30.1.1996 [1996 (2) SCC 199], 22.2.1996 [1996 (2) Scale (SP) 84],  1.3.1996 [1997  (4) SCC 778], 13.3.1996 [1996 (4) Scale (SP)  3], 1.5.1996 [1996 (4) Scale (SP) 56], 26.7.1996 (6) Scale (SP) 24], 9.7.1997 [1997 (5) Scale 254]. Orders in similar matters,  being the orders dated 12.2.1996 [1996 (3) Scale (SP)  35], 2.14.1996,  26.4.1996 [1996  (4) Scale (SP) 71], 26.7.1996  [1996 (6) Scale (SP) 23] and 7.10.1996 [1996 (6) SCC  354] in  Writ Petition  (Civil) No.  640 of  1995 - Anukul Chandra  Pradhan vs.  Union of  India and Others- and orders  dated  24.2.1997  and  18.3.1997  in  Writ  Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 1997 - Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs. Director, CBI & Ors., are also relevant.      The sum  and substance  of these orders is that the CBI and other  Governmental agencies  had not  carried out their public duty to investigate the offences disclosed; that none stands above  the law  so that  an alleged offence by him is not required  to be  investigated; that we would monitor the investigations, in  the sense  that  we  would  do  what  we permissibly could  to see  that the  sense that  we would do what we  permissibly could  to see  that the  investigations progressed while  yet ensuring  that we  did not  direct  or channel  those   investigations  or   in  any  other  manner prejudice the  right of those who might be accused to a full and fair  trial. We  made it  clear that  the  task  of  the monitoring court  would and  the moment  a charge-sheet  was filed in  respect of a particular investigation and that the ordinary processes  of the  law would then take over. Having regard to  the direction  in which  the investigations  were leading, we  found it  necessary to  direct the  CBI not  to report the  progress of  the investigations  to  the  person occupying the highest office in the political executive this was done  to eliminate  any impression  of bias  or lack  of fairness or  objectivity and  to maintain the credibility of the investigations.  In short,  the procedure adopted was of "continuing mandamus".      Even  after  this  matter  was  brought  to  the  court complaining of  the incrtia of CBI and the other agencies to investigate  into   the  offices   because  of  the  alleged involvement of  several persons  holding high offices in the executive, for  quite some  time the  disinclination of  the agencies to precede with the investigation was apparent. The accusation, if  true, reveled  a nexus  between high ranking politicians and  bureaucrats who  were alleged  to have been funded by  a source  linked  with  the  source  funding  the terrorists. In  view of  the funding  also  through  foreign currency, some  undesirable foreign  elements appeared to be connected. This revealed a grave situation poising a serious threat even  to the  unity and  integrity of the nation. The serious threat  posed to  the Indian  polity  could  not  be underscored.  The   obvious  need  for  an  expeditious  and thorough probe  which had  already been  delayed for several years could  not but be countenanced. The continuing inertia of the  agencies to  even commence  a  proper  investigation could  not   be  tolerated   any  longer.  In  view  of  the persistence of  that situation,  it becomes necessary as the proceedings progressed  to  make  some  orders  which  would activate the CBI and the other agencies to at least commence a fruitful  investigation. Merely  issuance  of  a  mandamus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 39  

directing the agencies to perform their task would be futile and, therefore, it was decided to issue directions from time to time  and keep  the matter pending requiring the agencies to report  the progress  of investigation so that monitoring by the  court could ensure continuance of the investigation. It was,  therefore, decided  to direct  the  CBI  and  other agencies  to   complete  the   investigation  expeditiously, keeping the court informed from time to time of the progress of the  investigation so  that the  court retained siesin of the matter  till the  investigation was  completed  and  the chargesheets were  filed in  the competent  court for  being dealt with, thereafter, in accordance with law.      The first  order to  this effect  was made on 5.12.1994 when the  CBI Director  was required to personally supervise the investigations  carried on  by the  CBI as  the  overall incharge and  to report  to the court the progress made from time to  time. The true scope of the matter was indicated in an order  dated 30th January, 1996 [reported in 1996 (2) SCC 199] as under:      "The  true   scope  of   this  writ      petition has  been indicated during      the  carlicr   hearings.  At   this      stage, when some charge sheets have      been filed in the Special Court and      there is  considerable publicity in      the medin  regarding  this  matter,      with  some  speculation  about  its      true scope,  it is  appropriate  to      make this  order to  form a part of      the record.      The gist  of the allegations in the      writ petition  are that  Government      agencies,  like  the  CBI  and  the      revenue authorities  have failed to      perform  their   duties  and  legal      obligations inasmuch  as they  have      failed  to   properly   investigate      matters arising  out of the seizure      of the  so called "Jain Diaries" in      certain raids conducted by the CBI.      It is alleged that the apprehending      of certain  terrorists led  to  the      discovery of  financial support  to      them  by  clandestine  and  illegal      means,  by  use  of  tainted  funds      obtained      through      ’havala’      transactions;   that    this   also      disclosed a  nexus between  several      important politicians,  bureaucrats      and   criminals,    who   are   all      recipients of  money from  unlawful      sources    given    for    unlawful      considerations; that  the  CBI  and      other  Government   agencies   have      failed to  fully  investigate  into      the  matter  and  take  it  to  the      logical end  point of the trail and      to prosecute  all persons  who have      committed any  crime; that  this is      being done  with a  view to protect      the persons  involved, who are very      influential  and  powerful  in  the      present set  up;  that  the  matter      discloses a  definite nexus between      crime and corruption in public life

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 39  

    at high  places  in  the    country      which poses a serious threat to the      integrity, security  and economy of      the nation;  that probity in public      life, to  prevent  erosion  of  the      rule of law and the preservation of      democracy in  the country, requires      that  the  Government  agencies  be      compelled  to  duly  perform  their      legal obligations  and to person in      accordance with  law  against  cach      and    every    person    involved,      irrespective of the height at which      he is placed in the power set up.      The facts  and circumstances of the      present case do indicate that it is      of utmost  public  importance  that      this matter  is examined thoroughly      by this  Court to  ensure that  all      Government agencies, entrusted with      the   duty   to   discharge   their      functions   and    obligations   in      accordance with law, do so, bearing      in mind  constantly the  concept of      equality    enshrined     in    the      Constitution and the basic tenet of      rule of law : "Be you ever so high,      the    law     is    above    you".      Investigation into  accusation made      against each  and every person on a      reasonable basis,  irrespective  of      the position  and  status  of  that      person,  must   be  conducted   and      completed  expeditiously.  This  is      imperative   to    retain    public      confidence in the impartial working      of the Government agencies.      In  this   proceeding  we  are  not      concerned with  the merits  of  the      accusations  or   the   individuals      alleged to  be involved,  but  only      with the  performance of  the legal      duty by  the Government agencies to      fairly,   properly   and      fully      investigate   into    every    such      accusation  against  every  person,      and  to   take  the  logical  final      action in accordance with law.      In case  of persons  against whom a      prima facie  case is made out and a      charge  sheet   is  filed   in  the      competent court,  it is  that court      which will then deal with that case      on merits, in accordance with law.      However, if  in respect of any such      person the  final report after full      investigation  is   that  no  prima      facic case  is made  out to proceed      further, so  that the  case must be      closed  against  him,  that  report      must be  promptly submitted to this      Court for its satisfaction that the      concerned  authorities   have   not      failed  to   perform  their   legal      obligations  and   have  reasonably

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 39  

    come to  such conclusion.  No  such      report having been submitted by the      CBI or any other agency till now in      this Court, action on such a report      by this  Court would be considered,      if and  when that  occasion arises.      We also  direct that  no settlement      should  be   arrived  at   nor  any      offence compounded by any authority      without prior leave of this Court.      We may  add that  on account of the      great public  interest involved  in      this  matter,  the  CBI  and  other      Government agencies  must  expedite      their action  to complete  the task      and prevent pendency of this matter      beyond the  period necessary. It is      needless  to   observe   that   the      results  achieved  so  far  do  not      match  the   available   time   and      opportunity     for      a     full      investigation ever since the matter      came to  light. It  is   of  utmost      national   significance   that   no      further time  is lost in completion      of the task. "      Relevant portions  of other  significant  orders  dated 1.3.1996  [reported  in  1997  (4)  SCC  778]  and  9.7.1997 [reported in 1997 (5) Scale 254] read as under:      Order dated 01.03.1996 :      ......    ......              ..... .      V.  Criminal  Misc.  Petition  Nos.      1153/1996:      We have  heard Shri Anil Diwan ands      the  learned   Solicitor   General,      Insofar as  the  larger  relief  of      suitable   guidelines   is   sought      therein, that  matter  is  deferred      for    consideration     at     the      appropriate later  stage  of  these      proceedings.  As  for  the  interim      relief claimed  in the application,      it is  sufficient for  us to direct      as stated hereafter.      To eliminate any impression of bias      and avoid erosion of credibility of      the investigations  being  made  by      the  C.B.I.   and  any   reasonable      impression of  lack of  farness and      objectivity therein, it is directed      that the  C.B.I. would not take any      instructions  from  report  to,  or      furnish any  particulars thereof to      any authority personally interested      in or  likely to be affected by the      outcome of  the investigations into      any  accusation.   This   direction      applies even  ion relation  to  any      authority      which      exercises      administrative  control   over  the      C.B.I. by  virtue of  the office he      holds, without  any  exception.  We      may add that this also accords with      what the  Learned Solicitor General

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 39  

    has very fairly submitted before us      about the  mode of  functioning  of      the C.B.I. in this matter.      We also place on record the further      statement  made   by  the   learned      Solicitor General  on  instructions      from C.B.I.  Director that  neither      the C.B.I.  Director nor any of his      officers has  been reporting to any      authority  about   any  particulars      relating to  these  investigations.      No further direction in this behalf      is necessary at this stage."      Order dated 09.07.1997 :      "The   question    pertaining    to      interference with  or  shifting  of      any of  the officer  in any  of the      investigative teams  of the  C.B.I.      or     any      other     connected      investigative agency  such  as  the      Enforcement  Directorate   in   the      several matters under investigation      by them  which are  being monitored      by this  Court and some of the High      Courts, is  under consideration  by      this Court  in this matter which is      being heard  by a 3-Judge Bench and      for this  reason the  same question      even though  raised in  some  other      pending matters  in this  Court  is      not being considered therein. It is      therefore, inappropriate  that  the      same    question    any    question      connected with it is  in any manner      be entertained or dealt with by any      other  court   including  and  High      Court in  any of the matters before      it. It  has become necessary to say      so in  view of the fact that we are      informed that  the same question in      different forms  is being raised in      some other  courts  including  High      Courts by  different  persons.  The      question   being    comprehensively      dealt with  by this  3- Judge Bench      in this  matter by  this Court,  we      make it  clear that  no other court      including  any   High  Court   will      entertain or  deal with the same in      any direct or indirect manner.      It is  significant that  the machinery of investigation started moving  as  a  result  of  these  orders  and  after investigation  of   the  allegations  made  against  several persons the  basis of  the contents  of  the  Jain  Diaries, Chargesheets were  filed in the competent court in the first instance against  14 persons,  as reported  to the  court on 22.2.1996. Chargesheets  against  many  other  persons  were filed in  the competent  court thereafter  as reported later from time  to time.  In  all,  34  Chargesheets  against  54 persons have  been filed  on this  basis. Thus, as indicated earlier, the purpose of these proceedings to the extent of  the complaint  of inertia  of  the  investigating agencies  came   to  an   end  with   the  filing  of  these chargesheets, since  the merits  of the  accusation  against each individual  has, thereafter, to be considered and dealt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 39  

with by the competent court at the trial, in accordance with law. Trial  i n  the  competent  court  is  now  a  separate proceeding.      After the commencement of these proceedings, some other matters of  a similar nature came to this Court in which the inaction of  the investigating  agencies to investigate into some serious  offences was  alleged.  Two  such  significant matters are  Writ Petition  (Civil) No. 640 of 1995 - Anukul Chandra Pradhan  vs. Union  of India  and Others  - and Writ Petition (Civil)  No. 38 of 1997 - Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs. Director,  CBI   &  Ors.  These  cases  revealed  a  serious situation eroding  the rule of law, where the accusation was against persons  holding high  offices and  wielding  power. Relevant portions  of some  significant orders  made in  the above two cases read as under :- Anukul Chandra Pradhan      Order dated 12.02.1996 [reported in      1996 (3) Scale (SP) 35]:           "We   do   not   consider   it      appropriate    to     permit    any      intervention   in this matter. Shri      Anil Diwan has been requested by us      to appear  as Amicus Curiae in this      matte. He  has kindly  agreed to do      so. It  is open  to anyone  who  so      desires, to  assist Shri Anil Diwan      and  to   make  available   to  him      whatever  material  he  chooses  to      rely  on   in  public  interest  to      enable Shri  Diwan  to  effectively      and properly discharge functions as      Amicus Curiae. Except for this mode      of assistance to the learned Amicus      Curiae, we do not permit any person      either to  be impleaded as party or      to appear  as an intervenor. In our      opinion,  this   is  necessary  for      expeditious disposal  of the matter      and to  avoid the focus on the crux      of the  matter getting  diffused in      the present  case by the appearance      of     many      persons     acting      independently in the garb of public      interest. Order dated 02.04.1996      ...        ...              ...           Learned S.G.  as well  as Shri      Anil Diwan,  learned  counsel,  are      heard, The  Secretary, Revenue Shri      Sivaraman, the  C.B.I.  Director  -      Shri K.  Vijay  Rama  Rao  and  the      Commissioner  of   Police  -   Shri      Nikhil Kumar  are also  present. We      direct that  from now each of these      three  officers  would  be  overall      incharge  of   the   investigations      which are being carried on by their      respective  departments  pertaining      to the  matters within the scope of      this Writ Petition. Learned S.G. on      instructions prayed for deferring t      he further  hearing to  enable  the      above  officers   to   report   the      progress made in the investigations      by  these   agencies  on  the  next

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 39  

    date." Order dated 07.10.1996 [reported in 1996 (6) SSC 354]:      ...         ...            ...           In   accordance    with    the      directions so  given, it  has  been      reported to   us  that chargesheets      have been  filed by  the C.B.I.  in      two cases  and the  Delhi Police in      one   case    which    they    were      investigating. These cases are :      1) St. Kitts’ Forgery Case.        (Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)      2) Lukhubhai Pathak Cheating case.         (Chargesheet field by C.B.I.)      3) Rajendra Jain case      (Chargesheet filed by Delhi Police)           In  view   of  the  fact  that      Chargesheet has  been  filed  under      Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code      in each of the above three cases in      the competent  court,  it  is  that      court which is now to deal with the      case on  merits, in accordance with      law.   Any   direction   considered      necessary        for        further      investigation,  if   any,   or   to      proceed against  any  other  person      who also  appears to have committed      any offence in that transaction, is      within the  domain of the concerned      court according  to  the  procedure      prescribed by  law. The  purpose of      this  proceeding   is  to   command      performance of  the duty  under law      to property  investigate  into  the      accusation  of  commission  of  the      crime and  to file a chargesheet in      the competent  court,  if  a  prima      faice  case   is  made   out.  This      purpose  has  been  served  in  the      above three  cases, in  respect  of      which no  further  action  in  this      proceeding is called for.           Accordingly,  this  proceeding      has come to an end, in so far as it      related to the above three criminal      cases. For  the remaining  part, it      is to  continue till the end result      prescribed by  law is achieved. The      concerned  court   in   which   the      chargesheet has  been filed  has to      proceed  entirely  i  n  accordance      with  law   without  the  slightest      impression  that   there   is   any      parallel proceeding  in respect  of      the same  mttere  pending  in  this      court.           We may  also observe, that the      concerned court  dealing  with  the      above matters  has to  bear in mind      that utmost expedition in the trial      and   its   early   conclusion   is      necessary for  the ends  of justice      and  credibility  of  the  judicial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 39  

    process. Unless  prevented  by  any      dilatory tactics  of  the  accused,      all trials  of this  kind involving      public men should be concluded most      expeditiously,  preferably   within      three months of commencement of the      trial. This is also the requirement      of speedy  trial read  into Article      21.           A  note   of  caution  may  be      appropriate.  No   occasion  should      arise for  an impression  that  the      publicity   attaching    to   these      matters has  tended to  dilute  the      emphasis on  the  essentials  of  a      fair trial and the basic principles      of  jurisprudence   including   the      presumption  of  innocence  of  the      accused unless  found guilty at the      end of the trial. This requirement,      undoubtedly has  to be kept in view      during  the  entire  trial.  It  is      reiterated,  that  any  observation      made by  this Court for the purpose      of the proceedings pending here has      no bearing  on the  merits  of  the      accusation, and is not to influence      the trial  in any manner. Care must      be  taken   to  ensure   that   the      credibility of the judicial process      is not  undermanned in  any manner.           This proceeding is to continue      in respect of the remaining matters      only which are  incomplete.      "     ...     ...             ... Dr. Subramaniam Swamy      Order dated 24.02.1997 :      "..      ...              ...           It is  also made  clear to the      petitioner that the petition having      been  entertained   as   a   public      interest litigation  in view of the      public interest involved, the locus      of the  petitioner is confined only      to  assisting   the  court  through      amicus  curiae   appointed  by  the      court and  that the  petitioner has      no independent  or additional right      in the  conduct or  hearing of  the      proceedings hereafter.           We request  Shri  Anil  Divan,      Sr. Advocate  to appear  as  amicus      curiae in this case......" Order dated 18.03.1997 :      "...    ...         ...           In   accordance    with    the      practice followed  by the  Court in      other similar  pending matters,  we      also direct that any person wishing      to  bring  any  material  or  point      before this Court for consideration      in  this   behalf  may   do  so  by      furnishing the same to Shri Anil B.      Divan, the  learned amicus  curiae,      who would  take the necessary steps

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 39  

    in accordance  with  the  need  and      relevance  thereof,   to  place  it      before   this    Court   in    this      proceeding." In-camcra proceedings      During  the   monitoring  of  the  investigations,  the Solicitor  General/Attorney  General,  from  time  to  time, reported  the   progress   made   during   the   course   of investigation, in order to satisfy us that the agencies were not continuing  to  drag  their  feet  and  the  "continuing mandamus" was  having the  effect  of  making  the  agencies perform their  statutory function.  The procedure adopted by us was  merely to  hear what  they had  to report or the CBI Director and  the Revenue  Secretary had  to tell  us to  be satisfied that  the earlier  inaction was not persisting. We maintained this  stance throughout.  We also ensured that no observation of  any kind was made by us nor was any response given which may be construed as our opinion about the merits of the  case or  the accusation against any accused. We also did not  identify or  name any accused during performance of this task.  At the  very outset,  the then Solicitor General Shri Dipankar  P. Gupta  requested  that  a    part  of  the proceedings be  held ‘in  camera’ to  enable  him  to  state certain facts  and, if  necessary, place before us material, the secrecy  of which  was required  to  be  maintained  for integrity  of  the  investigation  and  also  to  avoid  any prejudice to  the concerned  accused. In these circumstance, such a  procedure was  adopted only  to the extent necessary for this  propose, in  the interest  of justice, and that is how a  part of  some  hearings  was  held  in  camera.  This innovation  in  the  procedure  was  made,  on  request,  to reconcile the interest of justice with that of the accused.      It is  settled that the requirement of a public hearing in a court of law for a fair trial is subject to the need of proceedings being  held in camera to the extent necessary in public interest  and to  avoid prejudice  to the accused. We consider it  appropriate to  mention these  facts in view of the nature  of  these  proceedings  wherein  innovations  in procedure were required to be made from time to time to sub- serve the  public  interest,  avoid  any  prejudice  to  the accused and  to advance  the cause of justice. The medium of "continuing mandamus",  was a new tool forged because of the peculiar needs of this matter.      Inertia  was  the  common  rule  whenever  the  alleged offender was a powerful person. Thus, it became necessary to take measures to ensure permanency in the remedial effect to prevent  reversion  to  inertia  of  the  agencies  in  such matters.      Everyone against  whom there is reasonable suspicion of committing a  crime has  to be treated equally and similarly under the  law and  probity  in  public  life  is  of  great significance.  The   constitution   and   working   of   the investigating agencies  revealed the lacuna of its inability to perform whenever powerful persons were involved. For this reason, a  close examination  of the  constitution of  these agencies and  their control  assumes significance. No doubt, the overall  control of  the agencies  and responsibility of their functioning  has to  be in  the exhaustive, but then a scheme  giving   the  needed   insulation  from   extraneous influences even of the controlling executive, is imperative. It  is   this  exercise  which  became  necessary  in  these proceedings for  the future.  This is the surviving scope of these writ petitions. Point for consideration      As a result of the debate in these proceedings and into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 39  

experience gained thereby the Union of India came to realise that an  in-depth study  of the  selection of  personnel  of these agencies,  particularly the  CBI and  the  Enforcement Directorate of the Revenue Department, and their functioning is  necessary.   The  Government   of  India,  sharing  this perception, by an Order No. S/937/SS(ISP)/93 dated 9th July, 1993  constituted  a  Committee  headed  by  the  then  Home Secretary Shri  N.N.Vohra to  take stock  of  all  available information about  the activities  of crime syndicates/mafia organisations which  had development  links with,  and  were being protected  by, government  functionaries and political personalities.  It   was  stated   that  on   the  basis  of recommendations  of   the  Committee  the  Government  shall determine  the   need,  if   any,  to  establish  a  special organisation/agency to  regularly  collect  information  and pursue cases against such elements. The Committee was headed by the  then Home  Secretary Shri  N.N. Vohra and had as its Members  -   Secretary  (Revenue),   Director,  Intelligence Bureau, Director,  CBI, Joint  Secretary (PP),  Ministry  of Home Affairs.  The Committee  gave its recommendations dated 5.10.1993. It  has made  scathing comments and has painted a dismal picture  of the  existing sene.  It has said that the network  of  the  mafia  is  virtually  running  a  parallel government pushing the State apparatus into irrelevance. The Committee recommended  the creation  of a nodal agency under the  Ministry   of  Home   Affairs  for  the  collation  and compilation of  all information  received from  Intelligence Burcau (IB),  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  (CBI)  and Research and  Analysis Wing  (R&AW) and the various agencies under the  Department of  Revenue. The report is significant for the  dismal  picture  of  the  existing  scenario  which discloses a  powerful  nexus  between  the  bureaucracy  and politicians  with   the  mafia   gangs,  smugglers  and  the underworld. The report of the Vohra Committee is the opinion of  some   top  bureaucrats   and  it  confirmed  our  worst suspicions focusing  the need of improving the procedure for constitution and  monitoring the functioning of intelligence agencies. There is, thus, no doubt that this exercise cannot be delayed further.      The same  perception of  the Government of India led it to constitute another Committee by Order No. 226/2/97-AVD-II dated 8th  September, 1997 comprising of Shri B.G. Deshmukh, former  Cabinet   Secretary,  Shri   N.N.  Vohra,  Principal Secretary to  the Prime Minister and Shri S.V. Giri, Central Vigilance  Commissioner,   called  the   Independent  Review Committee (IRC). The order reads as under :           "WHEREAS  the   Government  of      India is  of the opinion that it is      necessary to set up a Committee for      going into  the  matters  mentioned      hereinafter;      2. NOW,  THEREFORE, a  Committee of      the following is hereby set up :-      (i)  Shri B.G. Deshmukh,           former Cabinet Secretary      (ii) Shri N.N. Vohra,           Principal Secretary to the           Prime Minister      (iii) Shri S.V.Giri,           Central Vigilance Commissioner      Shri  N.N.   Vohra  shall   act  as      Convenor.      3. The  terms of  reference of  the      Committee ar as under :-      (i) To  monitor the  functioning of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 39  

    the nodal agency established by the      Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   in      pursuance of the recommendations of      the Vohra Committee Report.      (ii)   To   examine   the   present      structure  and   working   of   the      Central  Bureau   of  Investigation      (CBI), the  Enforcement Directorate      and related agencies to suggest the      changes, if any, needed to ensure :      [a]   that offences alleged to have      been  committed   by  any   person,      particularly those  in positions of      high  authority,   are  registered,      investigated and  prosecuted fairly      and     expeditiously,     ensuring      against,   inter   alia,   external      pressure, arbitrary  withdrawals or      transfers of  personnel  etc.,  and      ensuring adequate protection to the      concerned     functionaries      to      effectively discharge  their duties      and responsibilities;      [b]    that  there  are  sufficient      cheeks and  balances to ensure that      the  powers  of  investigation  and      prosecution are not misused;      [c]   that there  are no  arbitrary      restrictions to  the initiation  of      investigations  or   launching   of      prosecutions.      4.   The Committee  should give its      report with  regard  to  the  items      mentioned in  paragraph 3(ii) above      within a period of 3 month s."      Before we  refer to  the report of the Independent Puri Committee (IRC),  it would  be appropriate  at this stage to refer to the Single Directive issued by the Government which requires prior  sanction  of  the  designated  authority  to initiate  the   investigation  against   officers   of   the Government  and   the  Public  Sector  Undertakings  (PSUs), nationalised  banks   above  a  certain  level.  The  Single Directive is  a consolidated  set of  instructions issued to the  CBI  by  the  various  Ministries/Departments  in  this behalf. It  was first  issued in 1969 and thereafter amended on many  occasions. The  Single Directive  contains  certain instructions to  the CBI  regarding modalities of initiating an inquiry  or registering a case against certain categories of civil  servants. Directive No. 4.7(3) in its present form is an under :- "4.7(3)(i)  In regard to any person who is or has been a      decision making level officer (Joint Secretary or      equivalent of above in the Central government or such      officers as are or have been on deputation to a Public      Sector Undertaking; officers of the Reserve Bank of      India of the level equivalent to Joint Secretary of      above in the Central Government, Executive Directors      and above of the SEBI and Chairman & Managing Director      and Executive Directors and such of the Bank officers      who are one level below the Board of Nationalised      Banks), there should be prior sanction of the Secretary      of the Ministry/Department concerned before SPE takes      up any  enquiry (PE or RC), including ordering search      in respect  of them. Without such sanction, no enquiry      shall be initiated by the SPE.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 39  

(ii)   All    cases   referred    to   the    administrative      Ministries/Departments by  CBI for  obtaining necessary      prior sanction as aforesaid, except those pertaining to      any   officer of  the rank  of Secretary  or  Principal      Secretary,   should be  disposed of  by them preferably      within a  period of two months of the receipt of such a      reference. In  respect of  the officers  of the rank of      Secretary or  Principal Secretary  to Government,  such      references should  be made  by the Director, CBI to the      Cabinet Secretary  for  consideration  of  a  Committee      consisting of the Cabinet Secretary as its Chairman and      the Law  Secretary and the Secretary (Personnel) as its      members. The  Committee  should  dispose  of  all  such      references preferably  within two  months from the date      of  receipt   of  such   a  reference  by  the  Cabinet      Secretary. (iii) When  there is  any difference  of opinion between the      Director, CBI  and the  Secretary of the Administrative      Ministry/Department in  respect of an officer up to the      rank of Additional Secretary or equivalent, the matters      shall be  referred by  CBI to Secretary (Personnel) for      placement before  the Committee  referred to  in Clause      (ii) above.  Such a  matter should  be  considered  and      disposed of  by the  Committee  preferably  within  two      months from  the date of receipt of such a reference by      Secretary (Personnel). (iv) In  regard to  any person  who is   or has been Cabinet      Secretary, before  SPE  takes  any  step  of  the  king      mentioned in  (i) above the case should be submitted to      the Prime Minister for orders."      We were  informed that  the  above  Directive,  in  its application, is  limited to  officials  at  decision  making levels  in   the  Government   and  certain   other   public institutions like the RBI,SEBI, nationalised banks, etc. and its scope  is limited to official acts. The stated objective of  the  Directive  is  to  protect  decision  making  level officers from  the threat  and ignominy   of  malicious  and vexatious inquiries/investigations.  It is  said  that  such protection to  officers at  the  decision  making  level  is essential ton  protect them  and  to  relieve  them  of  the anxiety from  the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions. It  was also  stated that  absence  of  any  such protection to them could adversely affect the efficiency and efficacy of  these institutions  because of  the tendency of such officers  to avoid  taking any  decisions  which  could later lead  to harassment  by any  malicious  and  Vexatious inquiries/investigations.  It   was  made   clear  that  the Directive does  not extend to any extraneous or non-official acts of  the government  functionaries and  a time frame has been prescribed  for grant  of sanction  in  such  cases  to prevent any avoidable delay.      Two questions arise in relation to Directive No. 4.7(3) of the  Single Directive, namely, its propriety/legality and the extent of its coverage, if it be valid.      The learned  Attorney General  categorically stated  in response to  our repeated  query that  the Single  Directive acts as  a restriction  only on  the CBI but is inapplicable against the  general power  or the  State Police to register and investigate  any such  offence under  the  general  law, i.e., Code  of Criminal  Procedure. He added that it is also not an inhibition against a complaint being lodged under the Cr. P.C.  before the  competent court  for any such offence. The Single  Directive was  sought to  be  supported  by  the Attorney General  on the ground that the CBI being a special agency created by the Central Government, it was required to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 39  

function according  to the mandate of the Central Government which has  constituted this  special  agency  for  specified purpose. The   desirability  of  the  Single  Directive  was supported by the learned Attorney General on the ground that the  officers   at  the  decision  making  level  need  this protection against  malicious or vexatious investigations in respect of  honest decisions  taken by  them. We  were  also informed that during hearing of this matter when this aspect was being debated, the Ministry of Finance has set up a High Power Board  of experts in finance and a retired High  Court Judge to  examine the merits in every case for he purpose of grant of  sanction to  the CBI for recording the information and investigating  into any  such offence,  and a time frame for the  devision has also been specified. Similarly, in the case of  government servants,  the authority  for  grant  of sanction with a provision for appeal in case the sanction is declined has  been provided.  It was  submitted that  such a structure to  regulate the  grant  of  sanction  by  a  high authority together  with a  time frame to avoid any delay is sufficient to  make the  procedure reasonable and to provide for an  objective decision  being taken  for  the  grant  of sanction within  the  specified  time.  It  was  urged  that refusal of  sanction  with  reasons  would  enable  judicial review of  that decision  in case  of any  grievance against refusal of  the sanction. Reliance was placed by the learned Attorney General  on the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  K. Veeraswami vs.  Union of  India and Others, 1991 (3) SCC 655 and State  of Bihar and Another etc. vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others. 1980 (1) SCC 554 to support the argument of legality of the  Single Directive.  We shall  advert to  this  aspect later.      The provision  made for  deciding the question of grant of sanction  in the  cases of  officers to  whom the  Single Directive applies is as under :-      OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 17,1997 OF THE RESERVE      BANK  OF   INDIA,   CENTRAL   OFFICE,   DEPARTMENT   OF      ADMINISTRATION & PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT      "Advisory Board on bank  frauds      It has  been decided  to set-up  an ‘Advisory  Board on      bank frauds’  to advise  the Bank on the cases referred      by the  Central Bureau of Investigation either directly      or   through    the    Ministry    of    Finance    for      investigation/registration  of   cases   against   bank      officers of  the rank of General Manager and above. The      constitution of the Board will be as under :-      Shri S.S. Tarapore,                    Chairman      Ex-Deputy Governor      Reserve Bank of India      Justice Shri B.V. Chavan      Retd. Judge of Bombay High Court         Member      Services Board.      Shri B.N. Bhagwat,      Retd. Secretary,                        Member      Government of India.      Shri Satish Sawhney,      Retd. Director General of Police      Member      Maharashtra.      Shri Y.H. Malegam,                   Member      Chartered Accountant & Senior      Partner in M/s. S.S. Billimoria & Co."      Another action  taken by  Government of  India  is,  as under :- Letter No.  I 11011/33/95-IS  DI(B) dated  1st, 2nd  August, 1995 of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India      "Government had  through its Order No.S-7937/SS(ISP)/93

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 39  

    dated 9th  July, 1993 constituted a Committee under the      Chairmanship of Former Home Secretary (Shri N.N. Vohra)      to take  stock of  all available  information about the      activities of  the crime syndicates/mafia organisations      which had developed links with and were being protected      by    Government     functionaries    and     political      personalities.  The   Vohra  Committee  in  its  Report      submitted to  the Government recommended a Nodal Set-up      directly under the Home Secretary to which all existing      intelligence and enforcement agencies of the Government      shall promptly  pass on  any information which they may      come across, relating to links of crime syndicated with      functionaries   of   the   Government   and   political      personalities.      2.   Accordingly, Government have now decided to set up      a Group under the Chairmanship of the Home Secretary to      act as  a Nodal  Set-up  to  collect  and  collate  the      information  and  to  decide  on  the  action  that  is      required to  be taken  to  ensure  that  the  nexus  of      criminals with  businessmen, politicians or bureaucrats      is broken.      3. The Group shall comprise:      i) Home Secretary,    Chairman      ii)Secretary(Revenue)  Member      iii) Director, IB      Member      iv)Director ,CBI       Member      v) Secretary, R&AW     Member      4.  It is fell that it would be necessary for the Group      to interact  with various State Governments in order to      both make  the  use  of  such  information  as  may  be      available with  the States  as well as to utilities the      expertise  of   the  relevant  agencies  of  the  State      Governments. For  this purpose,  the above  Group would      interact appropriately  from time  to time  with  Chief      Secretaries and other senior functionaries of the State      Governments.      5.  All the Intelligence and enforcement agencies under      the Government  like the  Intelligence Bureau,  the CBI      and various  bodies functioning under the Department of      Revenue shall  forthwith report  to the  Home Secretary      whenever substantive  information/evidence of collusion      of officials/politicians with criminal syndicates comes      to their  knowledge in the course of their working. The      Group shall meet periodically to decide upon the action      required to be taken and identify an agency or agencies      to take  up further  investigations.  The  Nodal  Group      would also  review the information in the above context      already available  with the various agencies and decide      upon the follow up action that is required to be taken.      6. This issues with the approval of Home Minister." Report of IRC      The IRC  has in its report accepted the legality of the Single Directive  placing reliance  on the  decision of this Court  in  K.  Veeraswami  (supra).  After  considering  the functions of  the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement, it has made certain recommendations which are as under :- "MEASURES FOR SPEEDY INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS 4.1   The Committee  recommends that  the following measures should be taken to ensure speedy investigations and trials : a)   Special Courts  should be got established at identified      stations to deal exclusively with FERA offences so that      cases ca be decided speedily. b)    To ensure against delays in investigations abroad, the      Revenue Secretary  should be the competent authority to      approve filing of applications for Letters Rogatory.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 39  

c)    The  Directorate of  Enforcement should  be  delegated      powers  to  appoint  special  counsels  for  conducting      trials, who  may also  act as  legal advisers  for  the      Department in respect of the cases entrusted to them. d)   In many  of the  major cases  of the  Directorate,  the      suspects have  been able to abuse the process of law by      stalling  the  investigations  at  the  initial  stages      through litigation  at various  levels, obtaining  stay      orders from  High  Courts  and  injunctions  on  flimsy      grounds. In consultation with the Attorney General, the      Revenue  Department  may  examine  the  possibility  of      making a  representation to  the Apex Court to consider      issuing appropriate  directions so  that the  pace  and      progress of  cases is  not  thwarted  by  interlocutory      procedures or stay orders issued by the Courts below. e)   Taking into  account the  instances in  which suspected      persons have  been  able  to  stall  investigations  on      alleged health  grounds, the  Revenue Department should      approach the  Ministry of  Health to establish standing      medical boards  in identified  cities to  examine  such      persons.  Such   boards  should   comprise  outstanding      medical experts  of unimpeachable integrity. The Courts      can be requested to refer the prayer of the accused for      staying proceedings  on health  grounds to such medical      boards before passing judgement." "CHECKS AND BALANCES 5.1  The Directorate must be provided adequate financial and administrative delegations to enable it to exercise autonomy in the  conduct and pursuit of investigations without let or hindrance.  Side   by  side,  it  is  necessary  to  provide appropriate  checks   and   balances   to   ensure   against miscarriage of  justice.  In  this  context,  the  Committee recommends the following : a)    The Revenue Department should undertake regular review      of the  progress of  cases before  the Directorate.  To      enable this,  the Directorate  should regularly furnish      information regarding  the number  of cases instituted,      progress   of    investigations,   cases   settled   in      adjudication and  those put  to Courts.  The  Committee      note that  while  such  information  is  already  being      supplied in  reply to Parliament Questions, information      to    be     placed    before     the     Parliamentary      Committee/Standing  Committee,   etc.,  there   is   no      established procedure  for the  Directorate to  furnish      relevant information in well devised format. b)    The  present  system  of  the  Directorate  furnishing      fortnightly reports  providing statistical  information      and  brief   outline  of   the  cases   taken  up   for      investigation  should  be  further  fine  tuned.  These      reports should  be carefully  examined by  the  Revenue      Department to ensure that the Directorate is performing      its functions officiently. The Revenue Secretary should      hold  regular   review  meetings   with  the   Director      Enforcement,  also   involving  the   Director  Revenue      Intelligence and other concerned officers. c)    Guidelines  relating  to  interrogation,  prosecution,      adjudication,   time    frame   for    completion    of      investigation,  etc.,   have   been   issued   by   the      Directorate from  time to time. These guidelines should      be  comprehensively  reviewed  and,  based  thereon,  a      circular should  be released for the information of the      public at  large, to  enable all  concerned to know the      systems and  procedures followed  by  the  Directorate.      This shall  contribute to  greater  transparency.  This      effort should be concluded within 2-3 months.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 39  

5.2  It   is importance  that the  Directorate lays  down  a clearly  spelt   out  time   frame  for  the  completion  of investigation, launching  of prosecution  and completion  of adjudication proceedings and for the Director to ensure that the prescribed  time limits  are strictly  adhered  to.  The Committee are of the view that the Directorate would be able to more  efficiently discharge  its functions  if  immediate steps are  taken to upgrade the level and quality of its in- house legal  advice mechanism.  At our request, the  Cabinet Secretary convened  a meeting  with the  Revenue Department, Enforcement Directorate  and  other  concerned  officers  to consider   various    proposals   for    strengthening   the Directorate. The  Committee hope  that the various decisions taken at  t  he  Cabinet  Secretary’s  level  shall  witness implementation within 6-8 weeks. 5.3  The Committee  recommends that  the Directorate  should take time  bound steps  to establish  a grievances redressal mechanism to  promptly deal with complaints received from he public  against  actions  of  the  Enforcement  Directorate. Insofar as complaints of arbitrary action by senior officers of the  Directorate are  concerned, the Committee recommends that these  should b e looked into  by a Committee headed by the Central  Vigilance Commissioner  and comprising  Revenue Secretary,   Director    General    Revenue    Intelligence, Enforcement Director  and a  senior  representative  of  the Ministry of Law. 5.4  As regards  the pursuit of cases which appear to have a politico-beaurocrai-criminal  nexus,   the  Home   Secretary agreed with  the Committees suggestion that the Nodal Agency in the  Home Ministry (chaired by Home Secretary) shall also include Member  (Investigation)  of  the  Central  Board  Of Direct Taxes,  Director General Revenue Intelligence and the Director Enforcement as members. 5.5 The  Committee recommends  that the Annual Report of the Department  of   Revenue  should   have  a  section  devoted exclusively  to   the   functioning   of   the   Enforcement Directorate. This  report should  highlight  the  number  of cases taken  up for  investigation by ED, raids and searches conducted, amount  of Indian  and foreign  currency  seized, etc. The  report should  also indicate the number of persons arrested, prosecutions  launched and  convictions ordered by the  Courts.   The  Committee  feels  that  enhanced  public knowledge about the work being done by the Directorate shall demystify its  operations and  contribute to improved public confidence."           "SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS I.  CBI AND CVC 1.    CVC  to be  conferred statutory status; appointment of      Central Vigilance  Commissioner to  be made  under  the      hand and seal of the President (paper 4.2) 2.   Constitution of a Committee for selection of cvc (paper      4.3) 3.  CVC to overview CBI’S functioning (para 5) 4.   CBI’s reporting to Government to be streamlined without      diluting its functional autonomy (para 3.3) 5.    CVC to have a separate section in its Annual Report on      the CBI’s functioning after the supervisory functioning      transferred to it (para 6) 6.   Constitution of a Selection Committee for identifying a      panel of  names for  selection of  Director CBI;  final      selection to be made by ACC from such panel (para 3.2) 7.   Central Government to pursue with the State Governments      to set  up credible  mechanism for  selection of Police      Chief (para 8.3) 8.   Director CBI TO  Have a minimum tenure of 2 years (para

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 39  

    8.4) 9.     Transfer  of   incumbent  Director   CBI  would  need      endorsement of the Selection Committee(para 8.5) 10.   Director CBI  to ensure full freedom for allocation or      work  within  the  Agency,  including  constitution  of      investigation teams(para 8.6) 11.   Selection/extension of  tenure of officers upto to the      level of  Joint Director  (JD) to be decided by a Board      under Central  Vigilance  Commissioner;  JD  and  above      would need the approval of ACC(para 8.7) 12.   Change in  the existing  Tenure Rules  not recommended      (para 8.8) 13.  Proposals for improvement of infrastructure, methods of      investigation,  etc.,  to  be  decided  urgently  (para      8.9.2) 14.   No need  for creation of a permanent core group in the      CBI (para 8.9.3) 15.  Severe disciplinary action against officers who deviate      from prescribed investigation procedures (para 9.1) 16.  Director CBI to be responsible for ensuring time limits      for filing charge sheets in courts (para 9.2) 17.   Document on  CBI’s functioning  to be published within      three months (para 9.4) 18.   Essential to  protect officers  at the decision making      levels  from   vexatious  enquiries/prosecutions  (para      10.6) 19.   Secretaries to  adhere  strictly  to  prescribed  time      frames for  grant of  permission  for  registration  of      PE/RC. CBI  to be  free  to  proceed  if  decision  not      conveyed within the specified time (para 10.9) 20.  Secretary   of  Administrative  Ministry  to  convey  a      decision  regarding  registration  of  PE/RC  within  2      months of  receipt of  request. If  not satisfied  with      decision, Director  CBI free to make fresh reference to      the Committee  headed by  Cabinet  Secretary  within  a      period of  four weeks  and the latter to decide thereon      within a period of four weeks (para 10,10) 21.   Protection   under the  Single Directive  not to cover      offences like  bribery, when prima-facic established in      a successful trap (para 10.12) 22.   Cases of disproportionate assets of Central Government      and All  India Services  Officers to  be brought within      the ambit of the Single Directive (para 10.13) 23.   Time limit  of 3  months for sanction for prosecution.      Where  consultation   is  required  with  the  Attorney      General or  the Solicitor  General, additional  time of      one month could be allowed (paras 10.14 and 10.15) 24.   Government to  undertake a review of the various types      of offences  notified for  investigation by  the CBI to      retain focus on anti-corruption activities which is its      primary objective (para 11.1) 25.   Cases falling  within the  jurisdiction of  the  State      Police which  do not have inter-state or inter-national      ramification should  not  be  handed  over  to  CBI  by      States/Courts (para 11.2) 26.  Government to establish Special Courts for the trial of      CBI cases (11.3) 27.   Severe action  against officials  found guilty of high      handedness; prompt  action  against    those  officials      chastised by the Courts (para 11.4) 28.   Director CBI to conduct regular appraisal of personnel      to weed  out the  corrupt an  inefficient, and maintain      strict discipline within the organisation (para 11.5) II. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 1.     Selection  Committee   headed  by  Central  Vigilance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 39  

    Commissioner to  recommend  panel  for  appointment  of      Director Enforcement by the ACC (para 2.2) 2.   Director Enforcement to have minimum tenure of 2 years.      For his  premature transfer,  the  Selection  Committee      headed  by   Central  Vigilance  Commissioner  to  make      suitable recommendations to the ACC (para 2.3) 3.    Post of Director Enforcement to be upgraded to that of      Additional   Secretary/Special    Secretary   to    the      Government (para 2.4) 4.     Officers  of  the  Enforcement  Directorate  handling      sensitive assignments  to be provided adequate security      for enabling  fearless  discharge  of  their  functions      (para 2.5) 5.   Extension of tenures up to the level of Joint Directors      in the  Enforcement Directorate  to  be  decided  by  a      Committee  headed  by  Central  Vigilance  Commissioner      (para 2.6) 6.    Proposals for foreign visits to conduct investigations      to  be   cleared  by  the  Revenue  Secretary  and  the      Financial Adviser (para 2.7) 7.    While  enjoying  full  internal  autonomy  Enforcement      Directorate to  be made  accountable. Responsibility of      Government to ensure efficient an impartial functioning      (para 3.1) 8.   Premature media  publicity to  be ensured against (para      3.3) 9.   Adjudication proccedings/prosecution to be finalised by      the Enforcement Directorate within a period of one year      (para 3.4) 10.   Director Enforcement  to monitor  speedy completion of      investigation         and          launching         of      adjudication/prosecution. Revenue  Secretary to  review      regularly (para 3.4) 11.   The Director  Enforcement to  keep close watch against      vexatious search;  action against functionaries who act      without due care (para 3.5) 12.   Special Courts  to be  established to  deal with  FERA      offences for speedy completion of trials [para 4.1(a)] 13.  For speedy  conduct of  investigations abroad,  Revenue      Secretary  be   authorised   to   approve   filing   of      applications for Letters Rogatory [para 4.1(b)] 14.   The Enforcement  Directorate to be delegated powers to      appoint Special Counsels for trials [para 4.1@] 15.   The Revenue  Department to  consult  Attorney  General      regarding measures  against conclusion  of cases  being      thwarted by stay orders, etc. [para 4.2(d)] 16.  Revenue  Department  to  approach  Health  Ministry  to      establish Standing  Medical Boards in identified cities      for examination of accused persons seeking determent of      proccedings on health grounds [para 4.1(c)] 17.   Revenue Department  to undertake  regular  reviews  of      cases pending  with the  Directorate [para  5.1(a)  and      (b)]. 18.  Comprehensive   circular  to   be  published   by   the      Directorate to  inform public  about procedures/systems      of its functioning [para 5.2@] 19. In-house legal advice mechanism to be strengthened (para      5.2) 20.  Proposals  for  strengthening  the  Directorate  to  be      implemented within 8 weeks (para 5.2) 21. Directorate to establish a grievance redressal mechanism      (para 5.2) 22.   Committee headed  by Central Vigilance Commissioner to      decide complaints  of arbitrary  action by  Directorate      officials (para 5.3)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 39  

22.   Committee headed  by Central Vigilance Commissioner to      decide complaints  o f  arbitrary action by Directorate      officials (para 5.3) 23.   Nodal Agency  headed by  Home Secretary  on  politico-      beaurocrat-criminal    nexus    to    include    Member      Investigation   CBDT,    Director    General    Revenue      Intelligence and  Director Enforcement as members (para      5.4) 24.   Annual Report  of the Department of Revenue to contain      an exhaustive section on the working of the Enforcement      Directorate (para 5.5) 25.   Suitable incentives to be provided to functionaries of      Enforcement Directorate  at various  levels, to attract      best material,  to be  decided within  tow months (para      6.1) III. NODAL AGENCY ON CRIMINAL NEXUS 1.    Requirements  of inter-agency  do-ordination at fields      unit level to be evolved by Home Secretary (para 2.1) 2.    Na’s  functioning to  be watched  for some time before      considering need for structural changes (para 3) 3.   Home Secretary  will hold  meetings of  NA every  month      (para 3)"      The reference  to paragraphs within brackets at the end of each  recommendation is  to the  paragraphs of the report containing discussion  pertaining to  the Central  Bureau of Investigation (CBI)  and Directorate  of Enforcement in Part II of  the report. These recommendations have, therefore, to be read along with the discussion in the corresponding paras in Part I and Part II of the report. Need for Court’s intervention      The IRC is a body constituted by the Central Government itself as  a result  of its perception that the constitution and  functioning   of  the   CBI,  CVC  and  Directorate  of Enforcement require  a close  scrutiny in  the background of the recent unsatisfactory functioning of these agencies with a view  to improve t heir functioning. The view taken by the IRC is  a reaffirmation  of this belief shared b y everyone. The preface  to the  report indicates  the  reason  for  the constitution of  the IRC  and says that "In the past several years, there  has been progressive increase in allegation of corruption involving  public servants. Understandably, cases of this  nature have  attracted heightened  media and public attention. A  general  impression  appears  to  have  gained ground that the concerned Central investigating agencies are subject to  extraneous pressures  and have been indulging in dilatory tactics  in not  bringing the  guilty to  book. The decisions   of    higher   courts    to   directly   monitor investigations in  certain cases have added to the aforesaid belief." There  can thus  be no doubt that there is need for the exercise  we were  called upon  to perform and which has occasioned consideration of this crucial issue by this Court in exercise  of its  powers conferred by the Constitution of India.  The   conclusions  reached  b  y  the  IRC  and  the recommendation it has made for improving the functioning and thereby  the   image  of   these  agencies   is  a   further reaffirmation of  this general  belief. There can also be no doubt that  the conclusions  reached  by  the  IRC  and  its recommendations are  the  minimum  which  require  immediate acceptance and implementation in a bid to arrest any further decay of  the polity.  Ii follows  that the  exercise to  be performed now  by this  Court is  really to consider whether any modifications/additions  are required  to be  made to be recommendations of  the IRC  for achieving  the  object  for which the  Central Government itself constituted the Irc. We are informed by the IRC could not be taken so far because of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 39  

certain  practical   difficulties  faced   by  the   Central Government but  there is  no negative reaction to the report given by the Central Government.      The only  caveat entered  by the Attorney General is on the basis of a note by an individual Minister in the Central Cabinet in  which emphasis  has been  laid that the ultimate responsibility for  the functioning of these agencies to the Parliament is that of the concerned Minister and this aspect may be dept in mind. It has been specifically mentioned that the Minister  would remain  the final disciplinary authority and would  have the  power to  refer complaints  against the agency or  its officers  to  an  appropriate  authority  for necessary  action.   There  can   be  no  quarrel  with  the Minister’s ultimate responsibility to the Parliament for the functioning  of  these  agencies  and  he  being  the  final disciplinary authority  in respect  of the  officers of  the agency with  power to  refer complaints  against them to the appropriate authority  Some other  specific  powers  of  the Minister were indicated as under :-      1.   The Minister  has the  power to review the working      of the agencies which are under his Department.      2.    The  Minister has  the power to give broad policy      directions regarding  investigation and  prosecution of      classes or categories of cases.      3. The  Minister has that power to appraise the quality      of the  work of the Head of the agency as well as other      senior officers of the agency.      4. The  Minister has  the power to call for information      regarding progress of cases.      It is  sufficient to  say that  The Minister’s  general power to  review the working of the agency and to give broad policy directions  regarding the functioning of the agencies and to  appraise the  quality of the work of the Head of the agency and other officers to the executive head is in no way to be  diluted. Similarly,  the Minister’s power to call for information generally  regarding the  cases being handled by the agencies  is not  to be  taken away.  However,  all  the powers of  the Minister  are subject  to the  condition that none  of  them  would  extend  to  permit  the  Minister  to interfere with  the course  of investigation and prosecution in any  individual case  and in  that respect  the concerned officers are  to be  governed entirely by the mandate of law and the statutory duty cast upon them.      It is  useful to  remember in  this context  what  this Court has  no several  occasions in  the past said about the nature of  duty and  functions of  Policy  officers  in  the investigation of  an offence.  It is  sufficient to refer to one of  them, namely,  Union of  India and Others vs. Sushil Kumar Modi  and Others, 1997 (4) SCC 770, (Bihar Fodder Scam case), wherein it was said, as under :-      "4.  At   the  outset,   we   would      indicate   that   the   nature   of      proceedings before  the High  Court      is  somewhat   similar   to   those      pending in  this  Court  in  Vineet      Narain v.  Union of India, 1996 (2)      SCC 199 and Anukul Chandara Pradhan      v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 354      and, therefore,  the High  Court is      required to proceed with the matter      in a  similar manner.  It has to be      borne in  mind that  the purpose of      these proceedings in essentially to      ensure performance of the statutory      duty  by  the  CBI  and  the  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 39  

    government agencies  in  accordance      with    law    for    the    proper      implementation of  the rule of law.      To  achieve  this  object  a  fair,      honest       and        expeditious      investigation into every reasonable      accusation against  each and  every      person  reasonably   suspected   of      involvement in the alleged offences      has  to   be   made   strictly   in      accordance with  law. The  duty  of      the Court  in such  proceedings is,      therefore, to  ensure that  the CBI      and other  government  agencies  do      their duty  and do  so strictly  in      conformity  with   law.  In   these      proceedings,  the   Court  is   not      required to  go into  the merits of      the accusation  or even  to express      any opinion  thereon,  which  is  a      matter  for  consideration  by  the      competent  court   in   which   the      charge-sheet  is   filed  and   the      accused have  to face trial. It is,      therefore, necessary  that not even      an  observation   relating  to  the      merits of  t he  accusation is made      by the  Court in  these proceedings      lest it  prejudice the  accused  at      the  trial.  The  nature  of  these      proceeding may be described as that      of     "continuing   mandamus"   to      require performance  of its duty by      the CBI  and the  other  government      agencies  concerned.  The  agencies      concerned must bear in mind and, if      needed, be  reminded of the caution      administered  by  Lord  Denning  in      this behalf  in R.V..  Metropolitan      Police  Commr.,  1968  (1)  All  ER      763/1968 (@) QB 118. Indicating the      duty of the Commissioner of Police,      Lord Denning  stated thus : (All ER      p.769)           "I   have    no    hesitation,           however, in holding that, like           every constable  in the  land,           he   should    be,   and   is,           independent of  the executive.           He  is   not  subject  to  the           orders  of  the  Secretary  of           State,.. I  hold it  to be the           duty of  the  Commissioner  of           Policy,  AS  it  is  of  every           chief  constable,  to  enforce           the law  of the  land. He must           take steps  so to post his men           that   crimes may be detected;           and that  honest citizens  may           go  about  their  affaires  in           peace. He  must decide whether           or not  suspected persons  are           to be prosecuted; and, if need           be, being  the prosecution  or           see hat  it is brought; but in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 39  

         all these things he is not the           servant of anyone, save of the           law itself. No Minister of the           Crown can  tell  him  that  he           must,  or   must   not,   jeep           observation on  this place  or           that; or that he must, or must           not prosecute this man or that           one.  Nor   can   any   policy           authority  tell  him  so.  The           responsibility     for     law           enforcement lies on him. He is           answerable to  the law  and to           the law alone."      The nature  of such a proceeding in      a court  of law  was also indicated      by Lord Denning, as under :           "A question  may be  raised as           to the  machinery by  which he           could be  compelled to  do his           duty. On  principle, it  seems           to me that once a duty exists,           there should  be  a  means  of           enforcing it. This duty can be           enforced. I  think, either  by           action  at  the  suit  of  the           Attorney General;  or  by  the           prerogative order of mandamus.           (emphasis supplied)      There can  hardly be any doubt that      the obligation of the police in our      constitutional scheme is no less.      5.  According   to  the   Code   of      Criminal   Procedure,    1973   the      formation  of  the  opinion  as  to      whether or  not here  is a  case to      place the accused for trial is that      of the  police officer  making  the      investigation and the final step in      the investigation  is to  be  taken      only by  the police and by no other      authority, see Abhinandan     Jha      v. Dinesh  Mishra, 1967 (3)SCR 668.      This must  be borne in mind as also      that the  scope and  purpose  of  a      proceeding like  the present  is to      ensure  a   proper   and   faithful      performance  of  its  duty  by  the      police officer  by  resort  to  the      prerogative writ of mandamus."      The Minister’s  power in  these matters has, therefore, to be understood as circumscribed by these limitations under the law. History of CBI      It is  useful to  refer at this stage to the history of the CBI.  The Special Police Establishment was formed during the World  War II when large sums of public money were being spent in  connection with  the War  and there arise enormous potential for  corruption amongst  the officers dealing with the supplies.  An executive order was made by the Government of India in 1941 setting up the Special Police Establishment (SPE) under  a DIG  in the  then Department of War. The need for a  central government  agency to  investigate c  ases of bribery and corruption by the Central   Government  servants continued  and,   therefore,  the   Delhi   Special   Policy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 39  

Establishment act was brought into force in 1946. Under this Act, the superintendence of the Special Police Establishment was transferred to the Home Department and its function were enlarged to  cover all  departments  of  the  Government  of India. The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories and  could also  be extended  to the States with the consent of the concerned State Governments. Then the SPE was put  under the  charge of Director, Intelligence Bureau. Later in 1948 a post of Inspector General of Police, SPE was created and  the organisation  was placed  under his charge. The Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  was  established  on 1.4.1963 vide  Government of India’s Resolution No, 4/31/61- T/MHA. This  was done  to meet  the felt  need of  having  a central  police  agency  at  the  disposal  of  the  Central Government to investigate into cases not only of bribery and corruption but  also those relating to the breach of central fiscal laws,  frauds in  government departments and PSUs and other serious  crimes. On  enlargement of the role of CBI an Economic Offences  Wing was  added to the existing Divisions of the  CBI. In  1887 tow  Divisions were created in the CBI known  as   Anti-Corruption  Division   and  Special  Crimes Division, the  latter dealing  with  cases  of  conventional crimes besides  economic offences.  In 1994 due to increased workload relating  to bank  frauds and  economic offences  a separate Economic  Offences Wing was established in CBI with the result  that since  then the CBI has three Investigation Divisions, namely,  Anti-Corruption Division, Special Crimes Division and Economic Offences Division. Further particulars thereof are not necessary in the present context.      We are  informed that  almost all the State Governments have given  concurrence for extension of the jurisdiction of the Delhi  Special Police Establishment in their States with the exception  of only  a few.  The result  is that  for all practical purposes,  he jurisdiction  in respect of all such offences is  exercised in  the consenting States only by the CBI and not by the State Police. This is the significance of the  role   of  the  CBI  in  such  matters  and,  therefor, technically the  additional jurisdiction  under the  general law of the State Police in. these matters  is of  no practical  relevance. The pragmatic effect of  the single  Directive is,  therefore, to  inhibit investigation against  the specified  category  of  officers without sanction in accordance with the Single Directive. Validity of directive No.4.7(3) of the Single Directive      We may now refer to the two decisions on which specific reliance has  been placed  by the  learned Attorney  General before us as well as the IRC in its report.      The decision in J.A.C. Saldanha (supra) is on Section 3 of the  Police, Act  1861 and deals with the ambit and scope of State  Governments power of ‘superintendence’ thereunder. It was  held in  J.A.C. Saldanha  (supra) that  the power of superintendence of  the State  Government includes its power to  direct  further  investigation  under  Section  173  (8) Cr.P.C.. That  was a  case in  which there  was occasion  to require further  investigation because of the unsatisfactory nature of  the investigation  done earlier  of a  cognizable offence. Thus, in that case the power of superintendence was exercised for directing further investigation to complete an unsatisfactory investigation  of  a  cognizable  offence  to promote the  cause of  justice and  not  to  subvert  it  by preventing investigation.  In our  opinion, in  the  present context, that  decision has  no application  to support  the issuance of  the Single  directive in exercise foe of the of superintendence, since  the effect  of the  Single Directive might thwart  investigation of  a cognizable offence and not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 39  

to  promote  the  cause  of  justice  by  directing  further investigation leading to a prosecution.      The other  decision of  this court  is in K. Veeraswami (supra). That was a decision in which the majority held that the prevention  of Corruption Act applies even to the Judges of the  High court  and the Supreme Court, After taking that view, it  was said  by the majority (per Shetty, J.) that in order to  protect the  independence  of  judiciary,  it  was essential that  no criminal  case shall  be registered under Section 154  Cr.P.C. against a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme  court unless  the Chief  Justice  of  India  is consulted and  he assents to such an action being taken. The Learned Attorney  General contended that this decision is an authority  for   the  proposition   that  in  case  of  high officials, the requirement of prior permission/sanction from a higher  officer or  Hear of  the Department is permissible and necessary  to save the concerned officer from harassment cause by a malicious or vexatious prosecution. we are unable to accept this submission.      The position  of Judges  of  High  Courts  and  Supreme Court, who  are constitutional  functionaries, is  distinct, and the  independence of judiciary, keeping it free from any extraneous influence,  including that from executive, is the rationale of  the decision  in  K.  Veeraswami  (supra).  In strict terms  the Prevention  of Corruption  Act, 1946 could not be  applied to the superior Judges and, therefore, while bringing those  Judges within   the  purview of  the Act yet maintaining the  independence of  judiciary, this  guideline was issued  as a  direction but  the Court.  The feature  of independence of judiciary has no application to the officers covered by  the single  directive, The need for independence of judiciary  from the directive influence does not arise in the case  of officers belonging to the executive. we have no doubt that  the decision  in K.  Veeraswami (supra)  has  no application to  the wide proposition advanced by the learned Attorney General  to support  the single  Directive. For the same reason,  reliance on that decision by the IRC to uphold the Single Directive is misplaced.      The question,  however, is  whether, without the aid of these decisions,  the Single  Directive can  be upheld.,  In this context,  meaning  of  the  word  "superintendence"  in Section 4(1)  of the Delhi Special Police establishment Act, 1946 requires consideration. The Delhi  special police  Establishment Act, 1946 is an Act to make  provision for  the constitution of a special police force in  Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the  Union   Territories   for   the   superintendence   and administration of  the said  force and  for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force  in retard  to  the  investigation  of  the  said offences, Section 6 of the Act requires consent of the state government to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the Act by the Delhi special police establishment. This is because Police’ is a State subject, being in List Li, entry 2 of the seventh Schedule;  For this  reason,  the  learned  Attorney general contended  that the  power and  jurisdiction of  the state  police   in  respect   of  an   offence  within   its jurisdiction remains  intact and  is not  inhibited  by  the Single Directive;  and  that  the  CBI  alone  is  inhibited thereby. Section  2 of  the act  deals with constitution and powers of  the Special  Police Establishment  (SPE). This is how the  CBI has  been constituted.  Section 3  provides for offences to  be investigated  by the  SPE and  says that the offences or  class of  offences to  be investigated  by  the agency may  be specified  by notification  in  the  Official

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 39  

Gazette by the Central government.      Section 3  of the  Police act,  1861 is in pari materia with Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment act 1946. These sections read as under:-      Section 3 of the Police act, 1861:      "3. Superintendence  in  the  state      Government:- The superintendence of      the  police  throughout  a  general      police district  shall vest  in and      shall be  exercised  by  the  State      government to  which such  district      is  subordinate,   and  except   as      authorised under  the provisions of      this Act,  no  person,  officer  or      court shall  be  empowered  by  the      State government  to  supersede  or      control any police functionary.      Sections  3  and  4  of  the  Delhi      Special Police  establishment  Act,      1946:      "Offences to   be  investigated  by      S.P.E.      3.  the Central government may beat      notification   in    the   Official      gazette  specify  the  offences  or      classes of offences which are to be      investigate by  the  Delhi  Special      Police establishment.      Superintendence & Administration of      S.P.E.      4(1) The  Superintend of  the Delhi      Special Police  Establishment shall      vest in the Central Government.      (2) the  administration of the said      police establishment  shall vest in      an officer appointed in this behalf      by the central Government who shall      exercise in  respect of that police      establishment such  of  the  powers      exercisable by an Inspector general      of Police  in respect of the police      force in  a state,  as the  Central      Government  may   specify  in  this      behalf"      The meaning  of the  word "superintendence"  in Section 4(1) of  the Delhi  special police  Act, 1946 determines the scope of  the authority  of the  Central Government  in this context.      There can  be no  doubt that the overall administration of the  said face, i.e. CBI vests in the Central Government, which also  includes, by  the virtue of Section 3, the power to specify the offences or class of offences which are to be investigated by  it. The  general superintendence  over  the functioning of  the  department  and  specification  of  the offences which  are to  be investigated by the agency is not the same  as and  would not include within it the control of the intiation   and  the actual  process  of  investigation, i.e., direction. Once the CBI is empowered to investigate an offence generally by its specification under  Section 3, the process of investigation, including its initiation, is to be governed by  the statutory  provision which  provide for the initiation and  manner of investigation the offence. This is not an  area which  can be  included within  the meaning  of "superintendence" in section 4(1).      It is,  therefore, the notification made by the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 39  

Government under  Section 3 which confers and determines the jurisdiction of  the CBI to investigate an offence; and once that jurisdiction is attracted by virtue of the notification under Section  3, the actual investigation to be governed by the statutory provisions under the general law applicable to such  investigation.   This  appears   to  us   the   proper construction of  section 4(1)  in the  context, and it is in harmony with  the scheme  of the  Act, and  section  3    in particular.  the  word  "superintendence"  in  section  4(1) cannot  be   constructed  in   a  winder   sense  to  permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by the CBI  contrary   to  the   manner  roved   by  the  statutory provisions., The  board proportion  urged on  behalf of  the Union of India that it can issue any directive to the CBI to curtail  or  inhibit  its  jurisdiction  to  investigate  an offence specified in the notification issued under section 3 by a  directive under  section 4(1)  of three  Act cannot be accepted, The  jurisdiction of  the 4  CBI to investigate an offence  is   to  be   determined  with   reference  to  the notification issued  under Section  any not by  any separate order not having that character      This view does not conflict with the decision in J.A.C. Saldanha (supra)  as earlier  indicated.  In  Saldanha,  the question was whether an unsatisfactory investigation already made could  be undertaken  by another  officer  for  further investigation  of  the  offence  so  that  the  offence  was properly investigated  as required by law, and it was not to prevent  the   investigation  or   an  offence.  The  single Directive has the effect of restraining reforming of AIR and initiation  of  investigation  and  not  of  preceding  with investigation,  as  in  Saldanha,  No  authority  to  permit control of  salutary  powers  exercised  by  the  police  to investigation an  offence within  its jurisdiction  has been cited before  us except.  K.Veeraswami which we have already distinguished. The view we take accords not only with reason but also  with the  gunnery purpose  of the  law and  is  in consonance with the basic tenet of the rule of law.      Once the  Jurisdiction is  conferred  on  the  CBI  top investigate an  offence  by  virtue  of  notification  under Section 3  of the  Act,  the  powers  of  investigation  are governed by  the statuary  provisions  and  they  cannot  be estopped or  curtailed by  any executive  instruction issued under Section  3(1) thereof.  This result  follows from  the fact that  conferment of  jurisdiction is under section 3 of the Act and exercise of powers of investigation is by virtue of the  statuary provisions covering investigation offences. it is  settled that statutory jurisdiction cannot be subject to execute control      There is  no similarity  between a mere executive order requiring prior  permission sanctions  investigation of  the offence  and   sanction  needed   under  the   stature   for prosecution. The  requirement of  sanction  for  prosecution being  provided in the very statue which enacts the offence, the sanction  for prosecution  is a  pre-requisite  for  the court to  take connivance  of the offence. In the absence of any statutory  requirement of  prior permission  or sanction for investigation,  it cannot  be  imposed  as  a  condition precedent  for   institution  of   the  investigation   once jurisdiction is  conferred on  the CBI  to  investigate  the offence by virtue of the notification under section 3 of the Act. The  word "superintendence"  in section 4(1) of the Act in the context must be construct in a manner consistent with the other  provisions of  the Act  and the general statutory powers of  investigation which  given investigation  even by the CBI.  The necessity of previous sanction for prosecution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 39  

is provided  in Section  6 of  the Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1947  (Section 19  of the  1988 Act)  without which  no court can  take consistence  of an  offence punishable under Section 5  of that  Act. There  is no such previous sanction for investigation  provided for  either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Delhi Special Police establishment Act or in  any other  statutory provision. The above is the only manner ii  which Section  4(1) of  the Act can in harmonised with Section 3 and the other statutory provisions.      The  Single  Directive  has  to  be  examined  in  this background. The  law does not classify offenders differently for  treatment   thereunder,  including   investigation   of offences and  persecution for  offences. according  to their status in  life. Every person accused of committing the same offences  is  to  be  dealt  with  in  the  same  manner  in accordance with  law, which  is equal  in its application to everyone. The Single Directive is applicable only to certain p[person above  the specified  level who  are  described  as "decision making  officers". The  question  is  whether  any distinction  can  be  made  for  them  for  the  purpose  of investigation of an offence of which they are accused.      Obviously, where  the accusation of corruption is based on direct  evidence and it does not require any inference to be drawn  depend on the decision making process, there is no rational basic to classify them differently. In other words, if the accusation be of bribery which is supported by direct evidence of  acceptance of  illegal gratification  by  them, including strap cases, it is obvious that no other factor is relevant  and  the  level  or  status  of  the  offender  is irrelevant. It  is for this reason that it was conceded that such cases,  i.e., if  bribery, including  trap  cases,  are outside the scope of the Single Directive. After some debate at the  bar, no  serious attempt  was made  by  the  learned Attorney General  to support  inclusion  within  the  Single Directive of cases in which the offender is alleged to be in possession of  disproportionate assets. It is clear that the accusation of  possession of  disproportionate assists  by a person is  also based  on  direct  evidence  and  no  factor pertaining to  the exercise  of decision  making is involved therein. We  have,  therefore,  no  doubt  that  the  Single directive  cannot   include  within   its  ambit   cases  of possession of  disproportionate assists by the offender. The question new  is only  with regard to cases other than those of bribery,  including trap  cases,  and  of  possession  of disproportioned  assists   being  covered   by  the   Single Directive      There may be other cases where the accusation cannot be supported by direct evidence and is a matter of inference of corrupt motive  for the  decision,  with  nothing  to  prove directly any  illegal gain  to the decision maker. Those are cases in  which the inference drawn is that the decision mus have been  made for  a corrupt  motive because  the decision could not  have been reached otherwise by an officer at that level in  the hierarchy.  This is,  therefore, an area where the opinion  of persons with requisite expertise in decision making of that kind is relevant, and may be even decisive in reaching the  conclusion  whether  allegation  requires  any investigation to  be made.  In view of the fact that the CBI of the  Police force does not have the expertise within fold for the  formation of the requisition opinion in such cases, the need for the inclusion of such a mechanism comprising of experts in  the field as a part of the infrastructure of the CBI is  obvious,  to  decide  whether  the  accusation  made discloses  grounds   for  a   reasonable  suspicion  of  the commission of  an offence  and it requires investigation. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 39  

the absence  of any such mechanism within the infrastructure of the  CBI, comprising  of experts  in the  field  who  can evaluate  the   material  for   the  decision  to  be  made, introduction therein  of a  body of experts having expertise of the  kind of  business which  requires the division to be made, can  be appreciated. But then, the final opinion is to be of  the CBI  with the  aid of that advice and not that of anyone else.  It would  be more  appropriate to  have such a body within the infrastructure of the CBI itself. The Single  Directive cannot,  therefore, be uphold as valid on the  ground to  it being  permissible in  exercise of the power of  superintendence of  the Central  Government  under Section 4(1)  Act. The  matter now  to be considered de hors hors the Single Directive. Power of the Supreme court      In view  of the  common perception  shared by  everyone including the  Government of  India    and  the  Independent review Committee  (IRC) of  the need  for insulation  of the need for  insulation of the CBI from extrancous influence of any kind,  it is  imperative that  some action  is  urgently taken to  prevent the  continuance of  this situation with a view in  ensure proper  implementation of  the rule  of law. This is the need of equality guaranteed in the  Constitution The right  to equality  in a  situation like this is that of the Indian  polity and  not merely of a few individuals. The powers conferred on this Court by the Constitution are ample to remedy  this defect  and to  ensure  enforcement  of  the concept of equality.      There are  ample powers  conferred by  Article 32  read with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue  of article  141  and  there  is  mandate  to  all authorities to  act in  aid of  the orders  of this Court as provided in  Article 144 of the Constitution. In a catena of decisions of  this Court, this power has been recognised and exercised, if  need be,  by issuing  necessary directions to fill the  vacuum till  such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. it is in the discharge  of this  duty that the IRC was constituted by the  Government   of  India   with  a  view  to  obtain  its recommendations after  an indepth  study of  the problem  in order to  implement them  by suitable  executive  directions till proper  legislation is  enacted. The  report of the IRC has been  given to  the Government  of India  but because of certain difficulties  in the  present  context,  no  further action by  the executive has been possible. The study having been made  by a  Committee considered  by  the Government of India itself  as an  expert body,  it is safe top act on the recommendations of  the IRC  to formulate  the directions of this Court,  to the  extent they  are of  assistance. In the remaining area, on the basis of the study of the IRC and its recommendations, suitable  directions can  be  formulate  to fill the  entire vacuum.  This is the exercise we propose to perform in  the present  case since  this  exercise  can  no longer  be   delayed.  it   is  essential   and  indeed  the constitutional obligation  of this court under the aforesaid provisions to issue the necessary directions in this behalf. We now  consider formulation of the needed directions in the performance of this obligation. The directions issued herein for strict  compliance are  a to  operate till  such time as they are replaced by suitable legislation in this behalf.      There is  another aspect  of rule  of law  which is  of equal significance.   Unless  a proper investigation is made and it  is followed  by an  equally proper  prosecution, the effort made  would not bear fruition.  The recent experience in  the   field  of  prosecution  s  also  discouraging.  To

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 39  

emphasise this  point, some  reference has  to be  made to a large number  of  prosecution  launched  as    a  result  of monitoring by  the court  in this matter which have resulted in discharge  of the  accused at  the threshold.    It  took serval years  for the CBI to commence investigation and that too as  a result  of the monitoring by this Court. It is not as if  the CBI,  on conclusion  of the investigation, formed the opinion  that no  case was  made out  for prosecution so that the  earlier inaction may have been justified.  The CBI did file  numerous chargesheets  which indicated that in its view a  prima facie  case for prosecution had been made out. This alone  is  sufficient  to  indicate  that  the  earlier inaction was unjustified.  However, discharge of the accused on filing  of the chargesheet indicates, irrespective of the ultimate outcome  of  the  matters  pending  in  the  higher courts, that the trial court at least was not satisfied that a prima facie case was made out by the investigation.  These facts  are   sufficient  to   indicate   that   either   the investigation or  the prosecution  or both  were lacking.  A similar result  of discharge  of the accused in such a large number of cases where chargesheets has been filed by the CBI is not  consistent with any other inference.  The need for a strong and  competent prosecution machinery and not merely a fair and  competent investigation  by the  CBI can hardly be over emphasised.   This  is the  occasion for us to take the view that  a suitable machinery for prosecution of the cases filed in  court by the CBI is       also essential to ensure discharge of  its full  responsibility by the CBI.  Unless a competent  prosecution   follows  a   fair   and   competent investigation, the  exercise in  the ultimate analysis would be futile.   Investigation without improving the prosecution machinery  is   of  no  practical  significance.  We  would, therefore, consider  the aspect  of prosecution  also in the formulation of the guidelines.      In exercise  of the  powers of this Court under Article 32 read  with Article  142, guidelines  and directions  have been issued in a large number of cases and a brief reference to a few of them is sufficient.  In Erach Sam Kanga etc. vs. Union of  India &  Anr. (Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1978 etc. etc.) decided  on 20th  march, 1979,  the Constitution Bench laid down certain guidelines relating to the Emigration Act. In Lakshmi  Kant Pandey  vs. Union  of India (in re: Foreign Adoption), 1984  (2) SCC  244, guidelines  for  adoption  of minor children  by foreigners  were laid down.  Similarly in State of  West Bengal & Ors. etc. vs. Sampat Lal & ors. etc. 1985 (2)  SCR 256,  K. Veeraswami  vs. Union  of  India  and Others, 1991  (3) SCC  655, Union  Carbide  Corporation  and Others vs.   Union  of India  and Others,  1991 (4) SCC 584, Delhi Judicial Service Association etc. vs. State of Gujarat and Others  etc.(Nadiad  Case),  1991  (4)  SCC  406,  Delhi Development Authority  vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. And Another,  1996 (4)  SCC 622 and Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others vs.  Union of  India and  Others, 1997  (4) SCC  306, guidelines,  were  laid  down  having  the  effect  of  law, requiring rigid  compliance.  In Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Associations  and Others  vs. Union  of  India  (IInd Judge Case),  1993 (4)  SCC 441,  a 9-Judge  Bench laid down guidelines and  norms for  the appointment  and transfer  of Judges which  are being  rigidly followed  in the  matter of appointments of  High Court  and Supreme  Court  Judges  and transfer of  High Court  Judges.   More recently in Vishakha and Others  vs. State  of Rajasthan and Others, 1997 (6) SCC 241, elaborate guidelines have been laid down for observance in work  places relating  to sexual  harassment  of  working women.  In Vishaka, it was said:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 39  

         "The obligation  of this court under Article 32 of      the  Constitution   for  the   enforcement   of   these      fundamental rights  in the  absence of legislation must      be viewed along with the rule of judiciary envisaged in      the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence      of  the   Judiciary  in  the  LAWASLA  region.    These      principles were  accepted by the Chief Justices of Asia      and the  Pacific at  Beijing in  1995 (*) As amended at      Manila, 28th  August, 1997  as those  representing  the      minimum standards  necessary to be observed in order to      maintain the  independence and effective functioning of      the judiciary The objectives of the judiciary mentioned      in the Beijing Statement are:      "Objectives of the Judiciary:      10.   The objectives  and functions           of the  Judiciary include  the           following:      (a)  to ensure that all persons are           able to  live  securely  under           the Rule of Law:      (b)   to promote, within the proper           limits   of    the    judicial           function, the  observance  and           the   attainment    of   human           rights; and      (c)   to    administer   the    law           impartially among  persons and           between   persons    and   the           State." Thus, an  exercise of  this kind  by the court is now a well settled  practice   which  has   taken  firm  roots  in  our constitutional jurisprudence.  This exercise is essential to fill the  void in  the absence  of suitable  legislation  to cover the field.      As pointed  out in  Vishakha (supra), it is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field  is coterminous  with that of the legislature, and where there  is inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, the  judiciary must  step in,  in  exercise  of  its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.      On this  basis, we  now proceed  to give the directions enumerated hereafter  for rigid compliance till such time as the legislature  steps  in  to  substitute  them  by  proper legislation.   These directions  made under  Article 32 read with Article  142 to  implement the  rule of law wherein the concept of  equality enshrined  in Article  14 is  embedded, have the  force of  law under  Article 141 and, by virtue of Article 144,  it is  the duty  of all authorities, civil and judicial, in  the territory  of India  to act in aid of this Court.   In  the  issuance  of  these  directions,  we  have accepted  and   are  reiterating  as  far  as  possible  the recommendations made by the IRC.      It is  a similar perception in England which has led to the constitution  of a  Committee headed  by Lord  Nolan  on ’Standards in  Public Life’.   In  Volume 1  of Lord Nolan’s Report (1995), the general recommendations made are: General recommendation           4.  Some   of   our   conclusions   have   general      application across the entire service;      Principles of public life           5.  The   general  principles   of  conduct  which      underpin public life need to be restated.  We have done

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 39  

    this.  The seven principles of selflessness, integrity,      objectivity,  accountability,   openness,  honesty  and      leadership are set out in full on page 14.      Codes of Conduct      6.   All public  bodies should draw up Codes of Conduct      incorporating these principles      Independent Scrutiny      7. Internal systems for maintaining standards should be      supported by independent scrutiny.      Education      8. More  needs to  be done  to  promote  and  reinforce      standards of  conduct in  public bodies,  in particular      through  guidance  and  training,  including  induction      training".      The Seven  Principles of  Public Life are stated in the Report by Lord Nolan, thus:             "The Seven Principles of Public Life                         Selflessness      Holders of  public office  should take decisions solely in terms  of the  public interest.  They should not do so in order to  gain financial  or  other  material  benefits  for themselves, their family, or their friends.                          Integrity      Holders of  public office  should not  place themselves under  any   financial  or   other  obligation   to  outside individuals or  organisations that  might influence  them in the performance of their official duties.                         Objectivity      In  carrying  out  public  business,  including  making public appointments,  awarding  contracts,  or  recommending individuals for  rewards and  benefits,  holders  of  public office should make choices on merit                        Accountability      Holders of  public office  are  accountable  for  their decisions  and   actions  to  the  public  and  must  submit themselves to  whatever scrutiny  is  appropriate  to  their office                           Openness      Holders of  public office should be as open as possible about all  the decisions  and actions  that they take.  They should  give   reasons  for  their  decisions  and  restrict information only  when the  wider  public  interest  clearly demands.                           Honesty      Holders of  public office  have a  duty to  declare any private interests  relating to  their public  duties and  to take steps  to resolve  any conflicts  arising in a way that protects the public interest.                          leadership      Holders of  public office  should promote  and  support these principles by leadership and example."      These  principles   of  public   life  are  of  general application in  every democracy  and one is expected to bear them in  mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a  public office.  It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest  alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in  trust for  the people.  Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be  severely dealt  with instead  of being pushed under the carpet.   If  the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly  investigated and  the offender  against whom  a prima  facie   case  is   made  out   should  be  prosecuted expeditiously so  that the  majesty of law is upheld and the rule of  law vindicated.   It  is duty  of the  judiciary to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 39  

enforce the  rule of  law and,  therefore, to  guard against erosion of the rule of law.      The adverse  impact of  lack of  probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold.  It also has adverse  effect on  foreign investment  and funding from the International  Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that  future aid  to under-developed countries may be subject to  the requisite  steps being  taken  to  eradicate corruption, which  prevents international  aid from reaching those for  whom it  is meant.  Increasing corruption has led to investigative  journalism which  is of  value to  a  free society.   The need  to highlight  corruption in public life through the  medium of  public interest  litigation invoking judicial review  may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other  countries:  R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1995) 1 WLR 386.      Of  course,   the  necessity  of  desirable  procedures evolved by  court rules  to ensure that such a litigation is properly conducted  and confined  only to  mattes of  public interest is  obvious.   This is  the effort  made  in  these proceedings  for   the  enforcement  of  fundamental  rights guaranteed  in   the  Constitution  in  exercise  of  powers conferred on  this Court  for doing  complete justice  in  a cause.   It cannot  be doubted that there is a serious human rights aspect  involved in  such a  proceeding  because  the prevailing  corruption  in  public  life,  if  permitted  to continue unchecked, has ultimately the deleterious effect of eroding the Indian polity. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby direct as under: I.  CENTRAL   BUREAU  OF  INVESTIGATION  (CBI)  AND  CENTRAL      VIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC) 1.   The Central  Vigilance Commission  (CVC) shall be given statutory status. 2.   Selection   for   the   post   of   Central   Vigilance Commissioner shall  be made  by a  Committee comprising  the Prime  Minister,   Home  Minister  and  the  Leader  of  the Opposition from  a panel  of outstanding  civil servants and others with  impeccable integrity  to be  furnished  by  the Cabinet Secretary.   The  appointment shall  be made  by the President on  the basis  of the  recommendations made by the Committee.  This shall be done immediately. 3.  The   CVC  shall   be  responsible   for  the  efficient functioning of  the CBI.    While  Government  shall  remain answerable for  the CBI’s  functioning, to introduce visible objectivity in  the mechanism  to be  established  for  over viewing the  CBI’s working,  the CVC shall be entrusted with the  responsibility   of  superintendence   over  the  CBI’s functioning.   The CBI  shall report  to the CVC about cases taken   up    by   it   for   investigation;   progress   of investigations; cases  in which  chargesheets are  filed and their progress.   The  CVC shall  review the progress of all cases moved by the CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants  which  are  pending  with  competent  authorities, specially those  in  which  sanction  has  been  delayed  or refused. 4.   The  Central   Government  shall   take  all   measures necessary to  ensure that  the CBI functions effectively and efficiently and is viewed as a non-partisan agency. 5.   The CVC  shall have  a separate  section in  its Annual Report  on  the  CBI’s  functioning  after  the  supervisory function is transferred to it. 6.   Recommendations for  appointment of  the Director,  CBI shall be made by a Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner  with   the  Home   Secretary   and   Secretary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 39  

(Personnel) as members.  The views of the incumbent Director shall be  considered by  the Committee  for making  the best choice.  The Committee shall draw up a panel of IPS officers on the  basis of  their seniority,  integrity, experience in investigation  and  anti  -  corruption  work.    The  final selection shall  be made  by Appointments  Committee of  the Cabinet (ACC)  from the  panel recommended  by the Selection Committee.   If none  among the panel is found suitable, the reasons the  reasons  thereof  shall  be  recorded  and  the Committee asked to draw up a fresh panel. 7.   The Director,  CBI shall  have a  minimum tenure of two years, regardless  of the  date of his superannuation.  This would ensure that an officer suitable in all respects is not ignored merely  because  he  has  less  than  two  years  to superannuate from the date of his appointment. 8.  The   transfer  of  an  incumber  Director,  CBI  in  an extraordinary situation,  including the need for him to take up a  more important assignment, should have the approval of the Selection Committee. 9.   The  Director,   CBI  shall   have  full   freedom  for allocation  of   work  within   the  agency   as  also   for constituting teams  for investigations.   Any change made by the Director,  CBI in  the Head  of  an  investigative  team should  be   for  cogent  reasons  and  for  improvement  in investigation, the reasons being recorded. 10.  Selection/extention of  tenure  of  officers  upto  the level of  Joint Director  (JD) shall  be decided by  a Board comprising  the   central   Vigilance   Commissioner,   Home Secretary and  Secretary (Personnel)  with the Director, CBI providing the  necessary inputs.  The extension of tenure or premature repatriation  of officers  upto the level of Joint Director shall  be with  final approval  of the Board.  Only cases pertaining  to the  appointment or extension of tenure of officers  of the rank of Joint Director or above shall be referred to  the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for decision. 11.  Proposals for improvement of infrastructure, methods of investigation, etc. should be decided urgently.  In order to strengthen CBI’s  in-house expertise, professionals from the revenue, banking  and security  sectors should  be  inducted into the CBI. 12.  The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the Cr. P.C.   provides   essential   guidelines   for   the   CBI’s functioning.     It  is  imperative  that  the  CBI  adheres scrupulously to  the provisions in the Manual in relation to its  investigative   functions,  like   raids,  scizure  and arrests.   Any  deviation  from  the  established  procedure should be  viewed seriously  and severe  disciplinary action taken against the concerned officials. 13.  The Director, CBI shall be responsible for ensuring the filing of  chargesheets in courts within the stipulated time limits, and  the matter should be kept under constant review by the Director, CBI 14.  A document  on CBI’s  functioning should  be  published within three  months to  provide the  general public  with a feedback on  investigations and  information for  redress of genuine grievances  in a  manner which  does not  compromise with the operational requirements of the CBI. 15.  Time limit  of three  months for  grant of sanction for prosecution  must   be  strictly   adhered  to.     However, additional  time   of  one   month  may   be  allowed  where consultation is  required with  the Attorney General (AG) or any other law officer in the AG’s office. 16.  The Director,  CBI should  conduct regular appraisal of personnel to  prevent corruption  and/or inefficiency in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 39  

agency. III. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 1. A  Selection Committee  headed by  the Central  Vigilance Commissioner and  including the  Home  Secretary,  Secretary (Personnel) and Revenue Secretary, shall prepare a panel for appointment of  the Director,  Enforcement Directorate.  The appointment to  the post  of Director  shall be  made by the Appointments Committee  of the  Cabinet (ACC) from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee. 2.   The Director,  Enforcement Director  like Director, CBI shall have a minimum tenure of two years.  In his case also, premature transfer  for any  extraordinary reason  should be approved by  the aforesaid Selection Committee headed by the Central Vigilance commissioner. 3.   In view  of the  importance of  the post  of  Director, Enforcement Directorate,  it shall  be upgraded to that of a Additional Secretary/Special Secretary to the Government. 4.  Officers   of  the   Enforcement  Directorate   handling sensitive assignments shall be provided adequate security to enable them to discharge their functions fearlessly. 5.   Extensions of  tenure upto  the level of Joint Director in the Enforcement Directorate should be decided by the said Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner. 6.   There shall  be no  premature media  publicity  by  the CBI/Enforcement Directorate. 7.   Adjudication/commencement of  prosecution shall be made by the enforcement Directorate within a period of one year. 8.   The Director, Enforcement Directorate shall monitor and ensure speedy completion of investigations/adjudications and launching of  prosecutions.   Revenue Secretary  must review their progress regularly. 9.  For   speedy  conduct   of  investigations  abroad,  the procedure to  approve filing  of  applications  for  Letters Rogatory shall  be streamlined  and, if  necessary,  Revenue Secretary authorised to grant the approval 10.  A comprehensive  circular shall  be  published  by  the Directorate    to    inform    the    public    about    the procedures/systems  of  its  functioning  for  the  sake  of transparency. 11.  In-house legal  advice mechanism  shall be strengthened by  appointment   of  competent   legal  advisers   in   the CBI/Directorate of Enforcement. 12.  The Annual  Report of  the Department  of Revenue shall contain a detailed account on the working of the Enforcement Directorate. III. NODAL AGENCY 1.   A Nodal Agency headed by the Home Secretary with Member (Investigation), Central  Board of  Direct  Taxes,  Director General, Revenue  Intelligence,  Director,  Enforcement  and Director,  CBI   as  members,   shall  be   constituted  for coordinated  action  in  cases  having  politico-bureaucrat- criminal nexus. 2.   The Nodal Agency shall meet at least once every month. 3.   Working and  efficacy of  the Nodal  Agency  should  be watched for  about one  year so  as to  improve it  upon the basis of the experience gained within this period. IV PROSECUTION AGENCY 1.   A  panel   of  competent   lawyers  of  experience  and impeccable reputation  shall be  prepared with the advice of the Attorney  General Their  services shall  be utilised  as Prosecuting Counsel  in cases  of significance.  Even during the course  of investigation  of an offence, the advice of a lawyer  chosen  from  the  panel  should  be  taken  by  the CBI/Enforcement Directorate. 2.   Every prosecution  which results  in the  discharge  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 39  

acquittal of the accused must be reviewed by a lawyer on the panel and, on the basis of the opinion given, responsibility should be  fixed for  dereliction of  duty, if  any, of  the concerned officer.   In  such cases, strict action should be taken against  the officer  found guilty  of dereliction  of duty. 3.   The preparation  of the  panel of lawyers with approval of the  Attorney General  shall be  completed  within  three months. 4.   Steps shall  be taken  immediately for the constitution of an  able  and  impartial  agency  comprising  persons  of unimpeachable integrity  to perform  functions akin to those of the Director of Prosecutions in U.K.  On the constitution of  such  a  body,  the  task  of  supervising  prosecutions launched  by   the  CBI/Enforcement   Directorate  shall  be entrusted to it. 5.   Till the  constitution of  the aforesaid  body, Special Counsel shall  be appointed  for the  conduct  of  important trials on  the recommendation of the Attorney General or any other law officer designated by him.      The  learned  amicus  curiae  had  urged  us  to  issue directions for  the appointment  of an authority akin to the Special or  Independent Counsel  in  the  United  States  of America for  the investigation  of  charges  in  politically sensitive matters and for the prosecution of those cases and to ensure  that appointments  to sensitive  posts in the CBI and other  enforcement agencies and transfers therefrom were not made  by the  political executive.   We  are of the view that the  time for  these drastic steps has not come.  It is our hope  that it  never will,  for we  entertain the belief that the  investigative agencies  shall function  far better now, having regard to all that has happened since these writ petition were  admitted and  to  the  directions  which  are contained  in     this  judgment.    The  personnel  of  the enforcement agencies  should not  now lack  the courage  and independence to  go about  their task  as they  should, even where those  to be  investigated are  prominent and powerful persons.      In view  of the  problem in  the States being even more acute,  as  claborately  discussed  in  the  Report  of  the National Police  Commission (1979), there is urgent need for the State  Government also  to set up credible mechanism for selection of  the Police  Chief in  the States.  The Central Government  must   pursue  the   matter  within   the  State Governments  and   ensure  that   a  similar  mechanism,  as indicated  above,   is  set   up  in   each  State  for  the selection/appointment, tenure,  transfer and  posting of not merely the  Chief of  the State  Police but  also all police officers of  the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. It is  shocking to  hear, a matter of common knowledge, that in some  States the  tenure of a Superintendent of Police is on an  average only  a fee months and transfers are made for whimsical reasons.    Apart  from  demoralising  the  police force, it  has also  the adverse  effect of politicizing the personnel.  It is, therefore, essential that prompt measures are taken  by the  Central Government  within the  ambit  of their constitutional  powers in  the federation  to  impress upon the  State Governments that such a practice is alien to the  envisaged  constitutional  machinery.    The  situation described in  the National Police Commission’s Report (1979) was alarming  and it  has become  much worse  by now.    The desperation of the Union Home Minister in his letters to the state Governments, placed before us at the hearing, reveal a distressing situation  which must  be cured,  if the rule of law is  to prevail.   No  action within  the  constitutional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 39  

scheme found  necessary to  remedy  the  situations  is  too stringent in these circumstances.      In the  result, we  strike down Directive No. 4.7(3) of the Single  Directive  quoted  above  and  issue  the  above directions, which  have to  be construed in the light of the earlier discussion.   The  Report of  the Independent Review Committee (IRC) and its recommendations which are similar to this  extent  can  be  read,  if  necessary,  for  a  proper appreciation of  these directions.   To  the extent we agree with the  conclusions and  recommendations of  the IRC,  and that is  a large  area, we  have adopted  the  same  in  the formulation of  the  above  directions.    These  directions require the  strict compliance/adherence  of  the  Union  of India and all concerned.      The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms      Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 5879-5882 of 1997      In view  of the  disposal of  the writ petitions in the manner indicated above and in the facts and circumstances of the cases,  we do  not consider  it necessary now to examine the appointment  of  Shri  R.C.  Sharma  as  Director,  CBI. Moreover, the  tenure of  Shri Sharma as Director, CBI is to end soon.   We  make it  clear that Shri Sharma is not to be continued as  CBI Director  beyond the date of expiry of his present tenure.  Accordingly, these Crl. M. Ps. are disposed of in this manner.      In view  of the  withdrawal of C.W.P.No.2992 of 1997 in the Delhi High Court as required by this Court’s order dated 11.9.1997, no  further order  for the disposal of C.W.P. No. 2992 of 1997 is necessary.