2010 (3) TMI 1264 - SC - Indian Laws

Allegations against the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim - Misappropriating funds from the public exchequer - misused public office to amass assets disproportionate to his known sources of income - issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate against him - HELD THAT - In the present petition the petitioners have made a rather vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this assertion because the guarantee of equal protection before the law or equality before the law is violated if there is an unreasonable discrimination between two or more individuals or between two or more classes of persons. Clearly the alleged acts of misappropriation from the public exchequer cannot be automatically equated with a violation of the guarantee of equal protection before the law . Furthermore we must emphasise the fact that the alleged acts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such as those of possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income as well as criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The onus of launching an investigation into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such as the State Police Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) among others. It is not proper for this Court to give directions for initiating such an investigation under its writ jurisdiction. Hence it is our conclusion that the petitioners prayer cannot be granted. This Court cannot sit in judgment over whether investigations should be launched against politicians for alleged acts of corruption. The Supreme Court of India functions as a Constitutional Court as well as the highest appellate court in the country. If the Supreme Court gives direction for prosecution it would cause serious prejudice to the accused as the direction of this Court may have far reaching persuasive effect on the Court which may ultimately try the accused. It is always open to the petitioners to approach the investigative agencies directly with the incriminating materials and it is for the investigative agencies to decide on the further course of action. While we can appreciate the general claim that the efforts to uncover the alleged acts of corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests in this particular case the petitioners would be well advised to rely on the statutory remedies. It is only on the exhaustion of ordinary remedies that perhaps a proceeding can be brought before a writ court and in any case the High Court of Sikkim would be a far more appropriate forum for examining the allegations made in the present petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed however with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
Allegations of misuse of public office and misappropriation of public money by the Chief Minister of Sikkim, Request for a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate, Applicability of Income Tax Act in Sikkim, Allegations of disproportionate assets, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in initiating investigations.

Analysis:
The writ petition filed as a public interest litigation alleged the incumbent Chief Minister of Sikkim of misusing his public office and amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, along with misappropriating public money. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate these allegations. The petitioners highlighted that the Income Tax Act had not been enforced in Sikkim due to special constitutional provisions, impacting the recording of income details. The petitioners listed detailed allegations of movable and immovable assets acquired by the Chief Minister and his relatives, supported by information obtained through the Right to Information Act. The prayer sought investigation into government contracts and misappropriation of funds, along with legal action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Supreme Court acknowledged its powers under Article 32 to enforce fundamental rights but emphasized that writ remedies are extraordinary and should not substitute statutory remedies. The petitioners' vague argument linking the alleged corruption to an infringement of Article 14 was dismissed, as misappropriation does not automatically violate the guarantee of equal protection before the law. The Court highlighted that investigations into such matters fall under the purview of investigating agencies like the CBI or State Police, not the Court's writ jurisdiction. While past courts have monitored ongoing investigations, initiating investigations is the executive's prerogative. The Court emphasized that its role is to ensure the integrity of investigations, not to order their initiation, and that statutory remedies should be exhausted before approaching a writ court.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that it cannot grant the petitioners' prayer for investigation initiation, as it could prejudice the accused and interfere with the executive's function. The petition was dismissed, with the suggestion that the petitioners should rely on statutory remedies and approach investigative agencies directly. The High Court of Sikkim was deemed a more appropriate forum for examining the allegations, emphasizing the limited role of the Supreme Court in initiating investigations.