Supreme Court orders impleadment of Anil Deshmukh & NIA in administration issue case

The Supreme Court directed the impleadment of Mr. Anil Deshmukh and the National Investigation Agency in a case concerning administration issues. It highlighted the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and emphasized the seriousness of the matter affecting administration. The Court noted the reliance on a previous judgment and allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court. It suggested an appropriate prayer be made to the High Court for further proceedings, concluding the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Impleadment of concerned person as respondent, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226, seriousness of the matter affecting administration, reliance on previous judgment, withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to approach High Court, appropriate prayer to be made to the High Court.

Impleadment of Concerned Person as Respondent:
The Supreme Court noted that the concerned person, Mr. Anil Deshmukh, Minister, had not been impleaded as a respondent in the case. The petitioner's senior counsel acknowledged the oversight and expressed willingness to implead Mr. Deshmukh as respondent No.4. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was also impleaded as respondent No.5 due to the investigation being handed over to them by the Central Government. The Court ordered the necessary amendments to be made to the memo of parties.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226:
During the hearing, the Court raised the question of why the petition was not filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, which has wider powers. The Court pointed out that if an independent agency investigation was being sought, it could also be granted by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court had the authority to address the matter, especially considering subsequent developments and the seriousness of the issue affecting the administration.

Seriousness of the Matter Affecting Administration:
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, noting its impact on the administration at large. It observed that the public disclosure of certain information seemed to be a result of personal conflicts. The Court highlighted the importance of insulating the police machinery from political interference to ensure efficiency and strengthen the rule of law.

Reliance on Previous Judgment:
The petitioner's senior counsel sought to rely on a previous judgment in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., emphasizing the need to implement directions aimed at insulating the police machinery from political/executive interference. The Court expressed disappointment in the lack of seriousness displayed by all concerned parties in implementing the directions outlined in the judgment.

Withdrawal of Writ Petition with Liberty to Approach High Court:
In light of the circumstances and the Court's observations, the petitioner's senior counsel requested to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court. The Court granted the liberty to do so, allowing the petitioner to file the petition with the High Court at a later time.

Appropriate Prayer to be Made to the High Court:
The Court opined that the request to take up the matter the following day should be made to the High Court as an appropriate prayer, rather than being directed by the Supreme Court. The pending applications were disposed of accordingly, concluding the proceedings on the matter.

---