Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could monitor an ongoing criminal investigation and require periodic progress reports and further steps where the investigation was found to be tardy and ineffective.
Analysis: Investigation of an offence ordinarily remains within the domain of the investigating agency, and courts should not interfere in the manner or course of investigation as a routine matter. However, the constitutional courts retain supervisory power in exceptional situations where the facts disclose that the investigation is not progressing properly or may be adversely affected, and intervention is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. On the facts, the High Court intervened because the investigation had been slow, repeated reports had been sought, and the authorities had not been proceeding with sufficient seriousness until monitored.
Conclusion: The High Court was justified in monitoring the investigation, and the challenge to its orders failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts may supervise or monitor a criminal investigation in exceptional cases where the investigation is stalled, tardy, or otherwise at risk of being compromised, if such intervention is necessary to secure a fair investigation and prevent miscarriage of justice.