2007 (10) TMI 681 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Governor's Decision; Emphasizes Judicial Independence in Taj Heritage Corridor Case.

The court dismissed the application challenging the Governor's order refusing sanction for prosecution related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. It ... Allegations of criminal misconduct - Refusal to grant sanction u/s 197 of CrPC for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati (Chief minister) and Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui - Project known as 'Taj Heritage Corridor Project' - CBI investigated into the matter and asked to furnish a self-contained note as regards its findings against the erring officers and holders of public posts - A detailed report was submitted by it - HELD THAT:- It is one tiling to say that this Court will not refrain from exercising its jurisdiction from issuing any direction for protection of cultural heritage and the ecology and environment; but then in discharge of the said duty, this Court should not take upon itself the task of determining the guilt or otherwise of an individual involved in the criminal proceeding. It should not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct so as to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima facie determine guilt of a person or otherwise. Any direction which could be issued, in our opinion, has already been issued by us on 27.11.2006. We may observe that while entertaining a public interest litigation in a given case, this Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the decision of a constitutional authority, but we are not concerned with such a situation. We, therefore, are of the view that we need not go further than what we have already said in our order dated 27.11.2006 to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Governor. If no sanction of the Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the appropriate court, in our opinion, would be entitled to deal therewith, but not this Bench. We, therefore, are of the opinion that this Bench should not entertain the application filed by the learned Amicus Curiae. The said application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Issues:1. Consideration of the correctness of the Governor's order refusing sanction for prosecution.2. Legal validity of CBI seeking sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr. P.C.3. Production of the sanction order of the Governor.4. Legal validity of the Governor's order refusing sanction.5. Declaration of sanction orders under Section 197(1) Cr. P.C. as public domain.Analysis:Issue 1:The main issue was whether the Bench should review the Governor's decision denying sanction for prosecution of individuals involved in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The Court had issued directions for investigation by CBI, leading to conflicting opinions on the need for sanction.Issue 2:The legal validity of CBI seeking sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was raised. The Amicus Curiae argued that in cases like this, sanction may not be mandatory, citing the protection of cultural heritage and constitutional provisions.Issue 3:The request for production of the Governor's sanction order was made, emphasizing the need to examine the basis for refusal and its compliance with legal provisions.Issue 4:Challenges to the legal validity of the Governor's order refusing sanction were presented, questioning the correctness of the decision and its alignment with the requirements of Section 197(1) Cr. P.C.Issue 5:The declaration sought for sanction orders under Section 197(1) Cr. P.C. to be public domain was discussed, highlighting the transparency and accessibility of such orders for accountability.The judgment emphasized the Court's role in protecting cultural heritage and ensuring proper investigation, without assuming the role of determining guilt. It clarified that the Court's jurisdiction is limited to overseeing investigations and not interfering with judicial functions. The decision underscored the importance of the judiciary's independence and the hierarchy of courts in resolving legal matters. Ultimately, the application was dismissed, with the Court refraining from delving further into the Governor's order, stating that the appropriate court should address any issues regarding the sanction.