2017 (11) TMI 2067 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rejects petitions for Special Investigation Team to probe alleged judicial corruption citing no registered FIR against sitting judges

Kamini Jaiswal Versus Union of India & Anr.

The SC dismissed petitions seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate alleged corruption involving judicial functionaries. The ... Constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by retired Chief Justice of India, to investigate the offences arising out of FIR - criminal conspiracy - taking illegal gratification - offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120B of the IPC - HELD THAT:- The entire judicial system has been unnecessarily brought into disrepute for no good cause whatsoever. It passes comprehension how it was, that the petitioner presumed, that there is an FIR lodged against any public functionary. There is an averment made in the writ petition that it is against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been recorded. There are no reflection of any name of the Judge of this Court in the FIR. There is no question of registering any FIR against any sitting Judge of the High Court or of this Court as it is not permissible as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [1991 (7) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT] wherein this Court observed that in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary the apprehension that the Executive being largest litigant, it is likely to misuse the power to prosecute the Judges. Any complaint against a Judge and investigation by the CBI if given publicity, will have a far reaching effect on the Judge and the litigant public. The need, therefore, is of judicious use of action taken under the Act. There cannot be registration of any FIR against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court Judge without the consultation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and, in case there is an allegation against Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the decision has to be taken by the Hon’ble President, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said decision. The instant petitions, as filed, are a misconceived venture inasmuch, as the petition wrongly presupposes that investigation involves higher judiciary, i.e. this Court’s functionaries are under the scanner in the aforesaid case; that independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red herring. There cannot be any FIR even against the Civil Judge/Munsif without permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and rightly, FIR has not been registered against any sitting Judge. Otherwise, on unfounded allegations, any honest Judge to the core, can be defamed, and reputation can be jeopardized. No Judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘who purports to sell whom’ - As is apparent from the narration of facts, there was no favourable order granted by this Court in favour of the medical college for the current academic session 2017-18, rather its inspection for considering confirmation of letter of permission for the next year 2018-19 had been ordered. In R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court [2009 (7) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT], this Court observed that there could be ways in which conduct and action of malefactor was professional misconduct. The purity of the court proceedings has to be maintained. The Court does not only have the right but also an obligation to protect itself and can bar the malefactor from appearing before the Court for an appropriate period of time. There is a duty cast upon an Advocate to protect the dignity of this Court not to scandalize the very institution as observed in the said decision. Reference has also been made to the decision in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India [2015 (10) TMI 2687 - SUPREME COURT] in which maxim nemo judex in causa sua has been considered, that no man is to be judge in his own cause, should be held sacred and that maxim is not to be confined to a case in which he is a party but applies to a cause in which he has an interest. It is far fetched and too tenuous to submit that any Judge of this Court much less Hon’ble A.M. Khanwilkar, J. has any interest in the subject matter and for that reason in spite of there being no allegation in the writ petition, Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar should recuse. There is no room for reasonable suspicion even in remote and argument is simply too derogatory to be made, probably that has been made anyhow or somehow to protect the case and to bring disrepute to this Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Filing of successive identical petitions and allegations of forum hunting.2. Allegations of judicial impropriety and conflict of interest.3. Authority of the Chief Justice of India in constituting benches and assigning cases.4. Allegations against judiciary and the implications of the FIR.5. Procedural impropriety and ethical considerations in filing petitions.Detailed Analysis:1. Filing of Successive Identical Petitions and Allegations of Forum Hunting:The judgment highlights the filing of two successive, identically worded petitions by different parties, which was deemed as an act of forum hunting. The court noted that the petitions were filed on consecutive days with similar reliefs and were mentioned by the same counsel, which amounted to forum shopping. The court emphasized that such actions bring disrepute to the judiciary and are considered unethical. The court criticized the petitioners for attempting to manipulate the judicial process by filing multiple petitions for the same cause of action and seeking to have them heard by different benches.2. Allegations of Judicial Impropriety and Conflict of Interest:The petitioners argued that the Chief Justice of India should not hear or assign the matter due to an alleged conflict of interest, as the FIR involved allegations against high-ranking judicial officials. The court dismissed these claims, stating that no specific allegations were made against any sitting judge of the Supreme Court in the FIR. The court reiterated that the Chief Justice has the prerogative to assign cases and that mere allegations cannot disqualify a judge from hearing a case. The court also rejected the request for recusal of one of the judges, terming it as an attempt at forum hunting.3. Authority of the Chief Justice of India in Constituting Benches and Assigning Cases:The court reaffirmed the principle that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, with the exclusive authority to constitute benches and allocate cases. This was supported by precedent, including the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, which established that the Chief Justice's administrative control over the court includes the power to decide the composition of benches. The court emphasized that no judicial order can override this administrative prerogative.4. Allegations Against Judiciary and the Implications of the FIR:The petitions were based on an FIR alleging a conspiracy involving a retired judge and others to influence a case outcome. The court noted that the FIR did not name any sitting judge of the Supreme Court, and the allegations were not substantiated. The court stressed that the independence of the judiciary should not be compromised by baseless allegations and that the judicial system should not be brought into disrepute without evidence.5. Procedural Impropriety and Ethical Considerations in Filing Petitions:The court criticized the manner in which the petitions were filed and pursued, highlighting the ethical responsibility of advocates to maintain the dignity of the court. The filing of successive petitions with similar content was seen as an abuse of the judicial process. The court underscored the need for the legal fraternity to adhere to ethical standards and avoid actions that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, finding them to be unfounded and an attempt to manipulate the judicial process. The judgment reinforced the authority of the Chief Justice in judicial administration and emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary.