Limited SIT mandate must be followed; investigation cannot extend to unrelated disputes or coercive action beyond assigned scope.

Where a court constitutes a multi-agency SIT for a limited purpose, each constituent agency must act only within the assigned mandate and in a coordinated manner. The High Court reiterated that the investigation into ICRMS had to remain confined to the earlier orders and could not drift into unrelated matters or proceed independently in a fragmented way. It also directed that the petitioner, his family members and related business interests should not be subjected to coercive steps or investigative action in third-party disputes outside the SIT remit, and that the company under inquiry should not be stalled by extraneous measures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the constituent agencies of the Special Investigating Team were acting beyond the scope of the court's earlier directions and could be restrained from proceeding outside the assigned field of inquiry; (ii) Whether directions were required to ensure that the petitioner and his related personal business interests were not subjected to coercive steps in matters outside the SIT mandate.

Issue (i): Whether the constituent agencies of the Special Investigating Team were acting beyond the scope of the court's earlier directions and could be restrained from proceeding outside the assigned field of inquiry.

Analysis: The earlier orders constituting the SIT confined the investigation to the affairs of ICRMS and assigned distinct roles to the constituent departments. The material placed before the Court showed that the agencies were not functioning in unison and were proceeding independently in a manner inconsistent with the coordinated structure earlier directed. The Court held that the investigation had to remain within the boundaries of the earlier orders and had to be carried out cohesively, without drifting into matters beyond the entrusted purpose.

Conclusion: The SIT and its constituent agencies were directed to act strictly within the limits of the earlier orders and to proceed in a coordinated manner.

Issue (ii): Whether directions were required to ensure that the petitioner and his related personal business interests were not subjected to coercive steps in matters outside the SIT mandate.

Analysis: The Court found that the investigation should not spill over into the petitioner's third-party disputes or personal business concerns unconnected with the subject matter entrusted to the SIT. It was emphasised that the investigation must not adopt a pick-and-choose approach or use coercive measures against the petitioner, his family members, or relatives in respect of their personal businesses or avocations. The running of the company under inquiry was also required not to be stalled by extraneous investigative steps.

Conclusion: Directions were issued restraining the SIT from entering third-party disputes and from using coercive means against the petitioner and related persons in matters outside its assigned remit.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with directions ensuring that the SIT would confine itself to the purpose for which it was constituted and would conduct the investigation in a coordinated and lawful manner without encroaching upon unrelated disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a court constitutes a multi-agency investigative team for a limited purpose, each constituent must act only within the assigned mandate and in coordination with the others, and investigation cannot extend into unrelated third-party disputes or be pursued through coercive steps beyond that mandate.

---