Court upholds Government Order, grants consent under DSPE Act, classifies IRCS office bearers as public servants, validates FIR.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the legality of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. 181, the State Government's authority to grant consent under the DSPE Act, the classification of IRCS office bearers as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the validity of the FIR and CBI investigation. The court found that the actions taken were legally sustainable and directed the CBI to expedite the investigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. 181, dated 09.04.2020.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of the State Government to grant consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
3. Whether the Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS) and its office bearers can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Validity of the FIR and subsequent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. 181, dated 09.04.2020:
The petitioners challenged the Government Order on the grounds that the allegations in the complaint were beyond the scope of Section 3 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act and that the IRCS is neither financed by the State nor Central Government. The court noted that the Government Order was issued following a complaint about the affairs of the IRCS, and the consent for CBI investigation was granted based on the seriousness of the allegations. The court held that the Government Order was legally sustainable as it followed the due procedure under Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of the State Government to Grant Consent:
The petitioners argued that the State Government of Tamil Nadu had no jurisdiction to grant consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, as the IRCS is a Central Act entity. The court observed that the IRCS is a statutory body constituted under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920, a Central Act. However, the court found that the consent granted by the State Government was valid as it was necessary to enable the CBI to exercise its powers within the State. The court cited relevant sections of the DSPE Act and previous judgments to support this conclusion.

3. Classification of IRCS Office Bearers as Public Servants:
The petitioners contended that the IRCS is an autonomous body and its office bearers are not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court disagreed, noting that the IRCS performs public duties and receives grants from the government. The court referred to the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and concluded that the office bearers of the IRCS fall within this definition due to their public duties and the grants received from the government.

4. Validity of the FIR and Subsequent Investigation by the CBI:
The petitioners questioned the validity of the FIR and the investigation by the CBI, arguing that no complaint was pending with the State Police and that the consent was granted without jurisdiction. The court held that the FIR was valid as it was registered following the proper procedure, including obtaining consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that the investigation was in its initial stages and that the petitioners' contentions could not be appreciated at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the Government Order, the consent granted under the DSPE Act, and the FIR were all valid and legally sustainable. The court directed the CBI to prioritize and complete the investigation expeditiously.

---