2015 (12) TMI 1245 - HC - FEMA

Power of court to review and supervise the investigations against the political party - investigations under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) - Held that - Undoubtedly the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, are entitled to direct investigation into an offence alleged to have taken place, as reiterated by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571 and such direction would not amount to infringement of the doctrine of separation of powers but such power should not be exercised just for asking or to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation and only if find such a direction necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case/situation. - Courts would be justified in issuing such a direction only if were to find prima facie an offence to have been committed and the Investigating Agency, for whatsoever reason, unwilling to act lest investigate or if find the investigation though undertaken, to be not a fair one or when find the gravity of the offence prima facie found by the Court to be such which requires investigation by a specialized agency, to restore public faith in the process of law. Either of the said requirements to have been met. Not only has the State/State Agency not refused investigation or a willingness to look into the allegations made in the petition against the respondents but from a perusal of the records produced before us we find the State to have, in the context of each and every averment made in the present case, launched an inquiry/investigation in accordance with law. The petitioner has also not been able to make out a case of the likelihood of the investigation against the respondents being not fair and proper, owing to political factors or owing to the investigative agencies being under the administrative control of the respondents. In fact, this Court had closed the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner finding no prima facie merit in the allegations of the petitioner to call for an order by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, to the investigative agencies to investigate. - No reason as to why the investigative agencies to whom the petitioner has already complained would not look into or are not looking into the allegations or would not discover the truth. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition seeking mandamus to register a criminal case under FCRA against respondents
- Fresh cause of action for filing the petition
- Investigation status report submitted to the Court
- Additional affidavit filed by the petitioner
- Response awaited from respondents regarding allegations
- Impleadment of AAP as respondent
- Counter affidavit filed by UOI
- Petitioner seeking investigation by CBI/NIA
- Contentions of the parties during the hearing
- Judicial review power to direct investigation
- Requirement for issuing direction for investigation
- Evaluation of the case by the Court
- Precedents on interference with investigation
- Need for Court intervention in exceptional circumstances

Analysis:

The petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought a mandamus to register a criminal case against the respondents under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The petitioner claimed that a fresh cause of action had arisen, despite earlier complaints and petitions. The Court noted the investigation status report submitted in a previous writ petition and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, along with responses awaited from the respondents regarding the allegations. AAP was impleaded as a respondent, and counter affidavits were filed by UOI. The petitioner also sought investigation by CBI/NIA, leading to detailed contentions during the hearing.

The Court deliberated on its power of judicial review to direct investigations, emphasizing the need for a prima facie offense and fair investigation circumstances. It cited precedents to caution against interference unless exceptional circumstances or mala fide exercise of power were evident. The Court found that the investigative agencies had initiated inquiries in line with the law and dismissed the petition, stating no need for Court intervention as the agencies were already looking into the allegations.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that the dismissal did not reflect a view on the merits of the allegations and no costs were imposed. The judgment underscored the importance of allowing investigative agencies to carry out their duties without judicial interference unless exceptional circumstances warranted Court intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice.