2015 (10) TMI 2815 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rejects transfer plea, upholds SIT, dismisses hacking claims

Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking transfer of investigation to an independent agency, citing lack of merit in allegations against the SIT ... Seeking to transfer of the investigation arising out of I-CR. No. 149/2011 registered on the basis of FIR lodged by Mr. K.D. Panth at Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad, (Rural) - proceedings for contempt Under Article 129 of the Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that the Petitioner has come to this Court with clean hands. Firstly the Petitioner kept quiet for a period of 9 years as to the factum of meeting dated 27.2.2002. Then he was exchanging e-mails for ascertaining the time and presence of the persons at Ahmedabad. In case he was present in the meeting it was not required of him to ascertain those facts. Petitioner did not state fact of meeting dated 27.2.2002 in statement recorded by SIT in 2009. The explanation offered by the Petitioner for said omission that his statement was recorded in the year 2011 before SIT Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure as such he made all disclosures. The SIT was same, having same powers all the time. Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus the explanation of the Petitioner does not appear to be prima facie credible. No case is made out to constitute SIT. No doubt about it 'be you ever so high the law is above you' is a well accepted principle but in the instant case the conduct of the Petitioner cannot be said to be above board. Neither it can be said that he has come to the court with clean hands. Petitioner was a high ranking officer but he too cannot be said to be above law. He must undergo the investigation as envisaged by law in case he has committed the offences in question. Coming to question whether criminal contempt proceedings to be initiated, as prayed, learned senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner has heavily relied upon e-mail exchanges filed by Petitioner allegedly from e-mail account of the then AAG with respect to which offence CR. No. 3148/2011 Under Section 66 of the IT Act has been registered. The allegation against Petitioner is of hacking of account and tampering with e-mails with respect to which an FIR has been filed, without meaning to deciding the correctness of the e-mails they are being looked into only for the purpose whether criminal contempt of the Court has been committed. The e-mail exchange between the then AAG and other functionaries tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial interference in any other manner in due course of justice. It is not the case of scandalizing the court or in any manner affecting fair decision of the court or undermining the majesty of the Court/people's confidence in the administration of justice or bringing or tending to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect which tantamount to criminal contempt Under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Transfer of investigation to an independent agency.2. Allegations against the Special Investigation Team (SIT).3. Petitioner's credibility and conduct.4. Allegations of hacking and tampering with emails.5. Request for constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT).6. Allegations of criminal contempt.Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer of Investigation to an Independent Agency:The petitions sought the transfer of investigations from the State Police to an independent agency like the CBI or a newly constituted SIT. The petitioner argued that the investigation by the State Police was biased due to the involvement of high-ranking state officials, including the then Chief Minister, in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The petitioner also expressed distrust in the CBI, suggesting that a new SIT should be formed under the supervision of the Supreme Court.2. Allegations Against the Special Investigation Team (SIT):The petitioner accused the SIT of leaking sensitive and confidential details to the then Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Gujarat. The petitioner claimed that emails from the SIT were accessed, revealing this leakage. However, the court found these allegations to be baseless and motivated. The emails in question were related to the Sohrabuddin encounter case, which was not under the SIT's purview for the Godhra cases.3. Petitioner's Credibility and Conduct:The court scrutinized the petitioner's conduct, highlighting his delay in disclosing crucial information and his interactions with political leaders, NGOs, and the media. The petitioner was found to have engaged in activities that suggested he was not acting in good faith. The court noted that the petitioner had kept quiet for nine years about his presence in the meeting on February 27, 2002, and only disclosed this information after being implicated in a criminal case.4. Allegations of Hacking and Tampering with Emails:The petitioner was accused of hacking the email account of the then AAG and tampering with the emails. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The court emphasized that the investigation into this matter should be based on scientific evidence and found no reason to doubt the State Police's ability to conduct a fair investigation.5. Request for Constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT):The petitioner requested the formation of a new SIT to investigate the allegations against him and the broader conspiracy involving the 2002 Gujarat riots. The court rejected this request, stating that the scope of the current investigations did not warrant the formation of a new SIT. The court noted that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court had already conducted a thorough investigation into the main cases related to the Gujarat riots.6. Allegations of Criminal Contempt:The petitioner alleged that the then AAG and other officials were involved in a criminal conspiracy to undermine the administration of justice, which amounted to criminal contempt. The court found no evidence to support these allegations. It was noted that consulting knowledgeable individuals or obtaining opinions before filing court documents did not constitute criminal contempt. The court also pointed out that the applications for initiating criminal contempt proceedings were barred by limitation, as they were filed well beyond the one-year limitation period provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the allegations against the SIT or the need for a new investigation team. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands and had engaged in activities that undermined his credibility. The investigations by the State Police and the SIT were deemed sufficient, and the court directed that the trial and investigations proceed in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded.