2015 (5) TMI 1065 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling on recusal, SIT appointment, and FIR application in high-profile case

Common Cause & Others Versus Union of India & Others

The Supreme Court addressed the recusal of Mr. Ranjit Sinha from coal block allocation case investigations, the appointment of an SIT to probe alleged ... 'Official secret' for the purposes of prosecuting Mr. Prashant Bhushan - Held that:- It is true that this Court had required the Director, CBI to ensure, by its order dated 8th May, 2013 that the secrecy of the inquiries and investigations into the allocation of coal blocks is maintained. However, if somebody accesses documents that ought to be carefully maintained by the CBI, it is difficult to find fault with such a whistle blower particularly when his or her action is in public interest. It is another matter if the whistle blower uses the documents for a purpose that is outrageous or that may damage the public interest. In that event, it would be permissible for this Court or an appropriate Court to take action against the whistle blower, if he or she is identified. However, the present case is not of any such category. The whistle blower, whoever it is, acted purportedly in public interest by seeking to bring out what he or she believes is an attempt by Mr. Ranjit Sinha to scuttle the investigations into the affairs of the Dardas or others in the Coal Block Allocation case. As mentioned above, we are not considering whether the file notes actually disclose an attempt by Mr. Sinha to scuttle the investigations. All that is of relevance is whether the disclosure by the whistle blower was mala fide or not. We are of the opinion that the disclosures made by the whistle blower were intended to be in public interest. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Mr. Prashant Bhushan or Common Cause or Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal had any intention to mislead this Court in any manner, nor do we agree that they have perjured themselves. The file notes speak for themselves and any interpretation, even an allegedly twisted interpretation said to have been given to them, cannot fall within the realm of perjury. As far as the allegation that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the file notes in this case cannot be described as an ‘official secret’ for the purposes of prosecuting Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Issues Involved:1. Recusal of Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, from coal block allocation case investigations.2. Appointment of an SIT to investigate alleged abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha.3. Registration of FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others for alleged false statements.4. Examination of the impact of Mr. Ranjit Sinha's meetings with accused persons on the investigations.Detailed Analysis:1. Recusal of Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, from coal block allocation case investigations:The first prayer in IA No.13/2014 sought the recusal of Mr. Ranjit Sinha from the coal block allocation case investigations. However, this issue became infructuous as Mr. Sinha had already superannuated on 2nd December 2014.2. Appointment of an SIT to investigate alleged abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha:The second prayer in IA No.13/2014 requested the appointment of an SIT to investigate the alleged abuse of authority by Mr. Sinha. The application highlighted that Mr. Sinha had allegedly met several accused persons at his residence without the investigating officers being present. The Court noted with concern that neither Mr. Sinha nor the CBI denied these meetings. The Court emphasized that investigations must not only be fair but must appear to be conducted in a fair manner. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the need to maintain public confidence in the investigation process, the Court found it necessary to inquire further into whether these meetings had any impact on the investigations and subsequent charge sheets or closure reports filed by the CBI.3. Registration of FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others for alleged false statements:Crl. MP No.387/2015 filed by Mr. Ranjit Sinha sought the registration of an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others for allegedly making false statements. The Court examined the allegations and noted that Mr. Sinha did not deny meeting accused persons without the investigating officer being present. The Court found no merit in Mr. Sinha's application, stating that the disclosures made by the whistleblower were in public interest and did not constitute perjury or a violation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Consequently, Crl. MP No.387/2015 was dismissed.4. Examination of the impact of Mr. Ranjit Sinha's meetings with accused persons on the investigations:The Court expressed concern over the fairness of the investigations due to Mr. Sinha's admitted meetings with accused persons without the investigating officer's presence. The Court decided that it was necessary to determine whether these meetings had any impact on the investigations and subsequent charge sheets or closure reports filed by the CBI. To assist in this matter, the Court issued a notice to the Central Vigilance Commission, returnable on 6th July 2015, to help determine the methodology for conducting such an inquiry.Conclusion:The Supreme Court addressed the issues of recusal, the need for an SIT to investigate alleged abuses of authority, and the potential impact of Mr. Sinha's meetings with accused persons on the fairness of the investigations. The Court dismissed the application for registering an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others, emphasizing the importance of public interest and the role of whistleblowers. The Court's decision to seek assistance from the Central Vigilance Commission underscores the need for an independent inquiry to ensure the integrity of the investigation process.