2013 (9) TMI 1151 - SC - Indian Laws

Grave irregularities in the grant of licences - Misuse of official position for grant of Unified Access Licenses - Blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences - huge loss to the public exchequer running into crores - No action taken by TRAI and DoT - licensees sold off stake/equities - Who failed to fulfill roll-out obligations - Non-compliance with other conditions of licence - Conducted investigation for grant of huge loans by the public sector and other banks to some companies - Public Interest - Constitutional power of superior court to give direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time - Speedy trial under Article 21 - HELD THAT - Monitoring of criminal investigation is the function of investigating agency and not that of the Court - HELD THAT - Crores and crores of tax payers money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, Court will face with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of law. More and more demands are now coming before the Courts for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings. Monitoring the trial proceedings - HELD THAT - No Court, other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated 11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court s system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system s procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business. already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings The decision on the case of A.R. ANTULAY VERSUS. R.S. NAIK ORS. 1988 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT followed. Court found no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court. In the result, Writ Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recall of Supreme Court orders dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012.
2. Rights under Articles 32, 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Court-monitored investigation and its scope.
4. Public interest in the 2G Spectrum case.
5. Fair trial rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Guidelines for court-monitored investigations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recall of Supreme Court Orders Dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012:
The Supreme Court examined whether its orders dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012, passed during the monitoring of the 2G Spectrum investigation, should be recalled. The orders were issued under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution while overseeing the investigation. The Court concluded that these orders were necessary for ensuring a comprehensive and coordinated investigation and that recalling them would not serve the larger public interest.

2. Rights under Articles 32, 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners argued that the orders violated their rights under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to move the High Court. The Court clarified that its powers under Articles 136 and 142 allowed it to pass orders for complete justice, which could not be interfered with by invoking Articles 226 or 227. The Court emphasized that these orders did not impede the rights of the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court under Articles 136 or 32 if aggrieved by the Special Judge's orders.

3. Court-monitored Investigation and Its Scope:
The Court reiterated that while monitoring the investigation, it did not interfere with the trial proceedings. The monitoring was limited to ensuring that the investigation was thorough and impartial. The Court's directions for a day-to-day trial were aimed at facilitating a speedy trial, not at supervising the trial itself. The Court dismissed concerns that its orders amounted to monitoring the trial proceedings.

4. Public Interest in the 2G Spectrum Case:
The Court highlighted the significant public interest involved in the 2G Spectrum case, which justified its intervention. The magnitude of the alleged corruption and the involvement of high-ranking officials necessitated a court-monitored investigation to ensure accountability and transparency. The Court noted that prolonged litigation undermines public confidence and weakens democracy and the rule of law.

5. Fair Trial Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the orders negated their right to a fair trial by limiting their ability to seek adjournments and other remedies. The Court disagreed, stating that the orders were intended to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure a timely resolution. The Court emphasized that early disposal of the trial was also in the interest of the accused, as it would allow them to prove their innocence sooner.

6. Guidelines for Court-monitored Investigations:
The petitioners requested the Court to lay down guidelines for court-monitored investigations. The Court declined, stating that such guidelines were unnecessary. It reiterated that the role of the monitoring court was to ensure a proper investigation, not to interfere with the trial. The Court's directions for a day-to-day trial were consistent with the statutory provisions and the need for judicial accountability.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them. The Court upheld its orders dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012, emphasizing that they were necessary for ensuring a fair and comprehensive investigation in the larger public interest. The Court also declined to frame guidelines for court-monitored investigations, reiterating that its role was to facilitate a speedy and impartial investigation, not to interfere with the trial proceedings.