2013 (12) TMI 1650 - SC - Indian Laws

CBI Non-partisan investigating agency - Central vigilance commission (CVC) - Prevention of Corruption Act ( PC Act for short) -The fact that the investigation is monitored by the constitutional court is itself an assurance that investigation/inquiry by the CBI is not actuated with ulterior motive to harass any public servant and the investigating agency performs its duties and discharges its responsibility of fair and impartial investigation uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the PC Act is being monitored by the Court. HELD THAT - The approval of the Central Government is not necessary under Section 6A of the DSPE Act in a matter where inquiry/investigation into the crime under the PC Act is being monitored by this Court. This position holds good in cases which are directed by the Court to be registered and the inquiry/investigation thereon is actually being monitored by this Court. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing or channeling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea is to retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry/investigation into the alleged crime; that inquiry/investigation into every accusation is made on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the logical conclusion in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) in a Court-monitored investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

Detailed Analysis:

Background and Context:
The core issue revolves around whether the Central Government's approval is necessary under Section 6A of the DSPE Act for investigations into crimes under the PC Act when such investigations are monitored by the Court. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been investigating allegations of corruption concerning the allocation of coal blocks, and these investigations are being monitored by the Court.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act:
Section 6A mandates that the CBI must obtain prior approval from the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or investigation into offenses under the PC Act involving Central Government employees of Joint Secretary level and above. This provision was introduced to protect senior officials from frivolous and vexatious investigations.

Court's Monitoring Role:
The Court has been monitoring the CBI's investigations to ensure they are conducted fairly and without external influence. This monitoring aims to maintain public confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of the investigation.

Arguments Presented:
- Attorney General's View: The Attorney General argued that Section 6A provides a necessary screening mechanism to protect senior officials from harassment and to ensure they can make decisions without fear. He emphasized that the requirement of prior sanction does not conflict with the Court's monitoring role and that the Court has the power of judicial review to address any misuse of Section 6A.
- CBI's View: The CBI argued that when the Court monitors an investigation, the protection intended by Section 6A is inherently achieved, and therefore, prior approval from the Central Government should not be necessary. They contended that requiring such approval would undermine the Court's ability to ensure a thorough and unbiased investigation.
- Petitioners' View: The petitioners and intervenors supported the CBI's stance, arguing that Section 6A should not apply to Court-monitored investigations. They cited previous judgments where the requirement for sanction was deemed unnecessary in Court-directed investigations.

Legal Precedents:
- Vineet Narain Case: The Court had previously struck down a similar directive (Single Directive) that required prior sanction for investigating senior officials, emphasizing that the law does not differentiate between offenders based on their status.
- Constitutional Bench Decisions: The Court referenced decisions that upheld the power of judicial review and the ability of constitutional courts to direct CBI investigations without requiring state or central government consent.

Court's Conclusion:
- The Court concluded that the objective of Section 6A-to protect senior officials from frivolous investigations-is sufficiently met when the investigation is monitored by the Court. The constitutional courts, being sentinels of justice, provide the necessary oversight and protection.
- The Court held that the requirement of Central Government approval under Section 6A does not apply to investigations monitored by the Court. This ensures that the CBI can conduct its investigations without undue delay or interference, maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial process.

Separate Opinion by Justice Lokur:
Justice Lokur agreed with the conclusion but provided different reasoning. He emphasized that a constitutional court-monitored investigation inherently provides the necessary protection to senior officials and ensures a fair and unbiased investigation. He argued that Section 6A should be interpreted as an injunction to the executive, not the judiciary, and that the Court's power of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions.

Final Judgment:
The Court held that the approval of the Central Government under Section 6A of the DSPE Act is not necessary for investigations into crimes under the PC Act when such investigations are monitored by the Court. This decision ensures that Court-monitored investigations can proceed efficiently and without undue interference, upholding the principles of justice and rule of law.

← Previous Next →