2019 (5) TMI 1965 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court limits CBI probes, stresses on jurisdiction in deity land transfer case

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing a CBI investigation into the transfer of a deity's land, ruling that the High Court had ... Direction to CBI to investigate - extraordinary constitutional power under Articles 32 and 226 - prima facie material to direct CBI investigation - public interest litigation maintainability in disputes over religious endowments - vesting of property in deity as religious endowment - State subject - police and public orderDirection to CBI to investigate - prima facie material to direct CBI investigation - extraordinary constitutional power under Articles 32 and 226 - State subject - police and public order - Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate alleged illegal transfer of trust property. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that directions to the CBI are extraordinary remedies and must be exercised sparingly where the High Court, after considering material on record, is able to form a prima facie conclusion that an independent investigation is necessary to instil confidence or to do complete justice. The High Court's order was based on speculative and sweeping observations (including generalized allegations against government functionaries and the Board) without arriving at a definite prima facie finding of criminality. There was no antecedent complaint to local police and the matters mainly concern rights of trustees and civil disputes over trust property. Given that police and public order are State subjects, transfer of investigation to CBI cannot be routinely directed; the present facts did not disclose the rare or exceptional circumstances required for such transfer. For these reasons the direction to CBI was held to be unwarranted and beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22]High Court's direction entrusting investigation to CBI set aside; such power not to be exercised in the present facts.Public interest litigation maintainability in disputes over religious endowments - vesting of property in deity as religious endowment - Whether the High Court should have entertained the public interest litigation seeking CBI investigation into alleged wrongful sale of property of a religious trust/deity. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the vesting of property in a deity is a religious endowment and lacks the requisite public element to render the dispute suitable for public interest litigation of the character that warrants extraordinary investigative directions. The High Court proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and made categorical findings (for example, that the deity could not transfer land) which were not tenable in law. The petition did not disclose the exceptional public interest dimension necessary to justify displacing ordinary civil remedies or initiating a CBI probe absent prima facie criminal material. [Paras 10, 19, 21]High Court should have refrained from entertaining the PIL in the manner it did; writ petition dismissed.Vesting of property in deity as religious endowment - Validity of the High Court's conclusion that the Deity could not in any case transfer its land. - HELD THAT: - The Court found the High Court's categorical finding that the Deity could not transfer its land to be untenable. The appellants relied upon statutory provisions entitling trustees to seek prior sanction for transfer under the applicable law, and the existence of administrative approvals and judicial sanctional steps was pleaded. Mere grant of permission by State functionaries does not, without more, constitute criminality. The High Court's sweeping conclusion on non-transferability exceeded its jurisdiction and ignored the statutory framework governing transfers by religious trusts. [Paras 11, 19]The High Court's finding that the Deity could not transfer its land is rejected as not tenable.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order directing the CBI to investigate is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed, the Court holding that the facts do not disclose the rare or exceptional circumstances necessary to transfer investigation to the CBI and that the matter primarily concerns civil questions relating to trust property not suitable for the extraordinary remedy granted. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the transfer of the deity's land.2. High Court's direction for CBI investigation.3. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.4. Applicability of Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950.5. Conditions for directing CBI investigation.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Transfer of the Deity's Land:The High Court of Jharkhand found that the property of Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan Mandir at Ranchi had been transferred against the mandate of the original Trust Deed created in 1948. The Trust Deed of 1987 also prohibited the Trustees from selling or transferring the land. However, a new Trust Deed created in 2005 allowed for the sale of landed property, which was challenged as being prepared with ulterior motives to usurp the property of the Deity. The High Court held that the transfer of the deity's land was illegal and needed investigation.2. High Court's Direction for CBI Investigation:The High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter, citing large-scale illegality and involvement of government functionaries. It referenced a previous case (WP(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011) where the CBI was directed to investigate similar issues. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the matter involved government officials and the Board, thus necessitating an independent investigation by the CBI.3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, these powers must be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench judgment in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, which held that the High Court should exercise its extraordinary power sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations to instill confidence in the investigation or when the incident has national or international ramifications.4. Applicability of Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950:Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, allows for the transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after obtaining previous sanction from the Board and approval from the District Judge. The appellants argued that they had obtained the necessary approvals as contemplated by the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have created suspicion regarding the transfer of the deity's land when statutory provisions were followed.5. Conditions for Directing CBI Investigation:The Supreme Court reiterated that directing a CBI investigation should be based on sufficient material that discloses a prima facie case. The Court referenced several judgments, including Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, and Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala, which held that such power should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases. The Court found that the High Court had misdirected itself in ordering a CBI investigation without any complaint to the local police and without examining the complexities of the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the CBI to investigate the matter. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and that the matter involved a civil dispute regarding the rights of the trustees to sell the property of a religious Trust or Deity. The writ petition was dismissed.