1997 (3) TMI 570 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there was a need to establish a special organ/agency to regularly collect information and pursue cases against such mafia elements? Whether the supporting material placed before the Vohra Committee can be disclosed for the benefit of the general public? Held that - The disclosure of the supporting material placed before the Vohra Committee to the public at large would instead of aiding the interest of the public be severely and detrimentally injurious to it. In that view of the matter we think there is no necessity for us to express ourselves on the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923. the grave nature of the issue demands deft handling by an all-powerful body which will have the means and the power to fully secure its foundational ends. The Nodal Agency in its present form comprises senior bureaucrats of the highest level. While it is suited to coordinate an exchange of information between different investigating agencies its composition is such that it may not be viewed by the public as completely independent or immune from pressures of every kind. It is therefore not suitable for pursuing an investigation of this kind and taking it to the state of prosecution where may be nexus between the persons under investigation and powerful persons such as those referred to in the Vohra Committee Report. In view of the seriousness of the charges involved and the clout wielded by those who are likely to become the focus of investigation it is necessary that the body which is entrusted with the task of following the investigation through to the stage of prosecution be such that it is capable of enjoying the complete trust and confidence of the people. We are therefore of the view that the matter needs to be addressed by a body which function with the highest degree of independence being completely free from every conceivable influence and pressure. Such a body must possess the necessary powers to be able to direct investigation of all charges thoroughly before it decides if at all to launch prosecutions. To this end the facilities and services of trained investigators with distinguished records and impeccable credentials must be made available to it. To this end and in the absence of any existing suitable institution or till its creation we recommend that a high level committee be appointed by the president of India on the advice or the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The Committee shall monitor investigations involving the kind of nexus referred to in the Vohra Committee Report and carry out the objectives described earlier.

Issues Involved:

1. Constitution and Purpose of the Vohra Committee.
2. Authenticity and Completeness of the Vohra Committee Report.
3. Right to Freedom of Information and Public Disclosure.
4. Follow-up Measures and Establishment of a Nodal Agency.
5. Efficacy of the Nodal Agency and Need for a More Independent Body.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitution and Purpose of the Vohra Committee:

The genesis of the controversy relates to the constitution of a Committee by the Union of India on July 9, 1993, known as the Vohra Committee. The Committee was chaired by the Home Secretary and included high-ranking officials from various departments. It was set up "to take urgent stock of all available information about the activities and links of all Mafia organisations/elements, to enable further action." The Committee was to determine whether a special organ/agency was needed to regularly collect information and pursue cases against such mafia elements.

2. Authenticity and Completeness of the Vohra Committee Report:

The Report of the Vohra Committee, submitted on October 5, 1993, was a compilation of responses from its members, noting the pervasive growth and spread of crime syndicates in Indian society. The petitioners alleged that the document tabled in Parliament was not the complete report, citing discrepancies in the length and continuity of the report. However, the Home Secretary, in a sworn affidavit, stated that the copy tabled in Parliament was genuine and authentic. The Court found no grounds to doubt the authenticity of the Report and concluded that the erstwhile Minister of Parliamentary Affairs might have been misinformed about the length of the Report.

3. Right to Freedom of Information and Public Disclosure:

The petitioners contended that citizens have a right to be informed of the contents and supporting materials of the Vohra Committee Report, asserting that transparency is essential for democracy. The Court acknowledged that while citizens have a right to know about government affairs, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against public interest. The Court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that secrecy could be justified in matters affecting public security. The Court concluded that disclosing the supporting material would harm intelligence agencies and public servants, potentially leading to harassment and victimization of innocent individuals.

4. Follow-up Measures and Establishment of a Nodal Agency:

Following the debates in Parliament, the Union Government set up a Nodal Agency on August 2, 1995, chaired by the Home Secretary, to coordinate the activities of central and state investigative agencies. The Nodal Agency aimed to supervise and coordinate efforts to control crime syndicates. However, the Court noted that the Nodal Agency, being a supervisory body without clearly delineated powers, could not effectively control investigative efforts.

5. Efficacy of the Nodal Agency and Need for a More Independent Body:

The Court observed that the Nodal Agency, comprising senior bureaucrats, might not be viewed as completely independent or immune from pressures. Given the seriousness of the charges and the influence of those likely to be investigated, the Court recommended the establishment of a high-level committee appointed by the President of India, on the advice of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. This committee would monitor investigations and carry out the objectives described in the Vohra Committee Report, ensuring independence and thorough investigation.

Conclusion:

The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a high-level independent body to handle the grave issue of the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and criminal elements in society.

← Previous Next →