Finality of litigation and no prior hearing in money-laundering probes upheld against recall and intervention attempts.

Third parties could not reopen or intervene in a concluded writ issue after their special leave petitions had been disposed of by the Supreme Court without liberty to reagitate it; the recall and intervention applications were therefore not maintainable. In a court-monitored money-laundering probe, the monitoring judge had jurisdiction to issue directions in aid of the investigation, and the allegations of breach of natural justice or bias were not made out; the investigative direction was left intact. The Court also reiterated that a proposed person has no right to prior notice or hearing before investigative steps, including summons or interrogation, in an ongoing special-statute investigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether third parties could seek recall of the earlier monitoring order and intervene in the writ proceedings after the Supreme Court had disposed of their special leave petitions without granting liberty to reopen the same issues; (ii) whether the direction concerning investigation into the applicants' involvement in the money-laundering related probe was without jurisdiction, offended natural justice, or was vitiated by bias; (iii) whether a prior notice or hearing was required before investigative steps could be taken under the money-laundering investigation.

Issue (i): whether third parties could seek recall of the earlier monitoring order and intervene in the writ proceedings after the Supreme Court had disposed of their special leave petitions without granting liberty to reopen the same issues

Analysis: The applications were filed by persons who were not parties to the writ proceeding and who sought to reopen a part of the earlier order after unsuccessfully approaching the Supreme Court. The earlier special leave petitions were disposed of without interference with the impugned order and without any express liberty to reagitate issues already decided. In that setting, a fresh attempt to recall the same direction was treated as barred by finality and constructive res judicata. Their presence was also held unnecessary for adjudication of the writ proceeding, since the applications did not aid disposal of the main matter.

Conclusion: The recall and intervention applications were not maintainable, and the applicants were not entitled to reopen the concluded issue.

Issue (ii): whether the direction concerning investigation into the applicants' involvement in the money-laundering related probe was without jurisdiction, offended natural justice, or was vitiated by bias

Analysis: The impugned direction was passed in the context of a court-monitored investigation and on the basis of materials placed before the Court, including the sequence of events relating to the public speech, the custodial complaint, and the investigative apprehension that the complaint was meant to thwart the probe. The Court held that the monitoring judge had jurisdiction to pass directions in aid of the ongoing investigation and that the matter could be brought before the judge supervising the probe. It further held that the applicants had no enforceable right to prior hearing before investigative steps were taken, and that the materials placed did not justify interference on the allegation of bias. The applicants could not dictate the manner or timing of investigation.

Conclusion: The direction was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the allegations of breach of natural justice and bias were rejected.

Issue (iii): whether a prior notice or hearing was required before investigative steps could be taken under the money-laundering investigation

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that, in criminal or money-laundering investigations, a proposed or suspected person has no right to be heard before the investigating agency proceeds, especially where summons or interrogation are part of an ongoing probe. The Court held that the investigation under the special statute could not be stalled by insisting on pre-interrogation notice and that the investigating agency was entitled to decide whom to question and when, in accordance with law.

Conclusion: No prior notice or hearing was required before the investigation proceeded against the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applications were rejected, the earlier investigative directions were left undisturbed, and exemplary costs were imposed to prevent obstruction of the ongoing probe.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot reopen, through recall or intervention, an issue already carried to the Supreme Court and disposed of without liberty to reagitate it, and in a court-monitored criminal or special-statute investigation there is no right to prior hearing before investigative steps are taken.

---