2007 (3) TMI 818 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the PIL - Misappropriation of public funds - Corruption in U.P. Administration - misused power and authority - writ petition filed by a Political opponent - forged documents to project the petitioner as a sponsored person of Congress - Seeking enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The prayer to take appropriate action to prosecute respondent Nos. 2-5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring assets more than the known source of their income, in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced straightaway. The Income-tax Department is concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax was paid or not, therefore, only an independent agency or the CBI could, on Court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. We, therefore, direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all the respondents and after scrutinizing if a case is made out then to take further action in the matter. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, we mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by respondent Nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is correct or not and submit a report to the Union of India and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take further steps depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the assets of respondent Nos. 2. In the instant case, it needs to be noted that we are concerned in this case not with the merits of the allegations. The present petition is filed on acquisition of alleged wealth. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. In our view, it is wrong in law for the Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his complaint and if the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court would be in error in dismissing the PIL. It is also equally true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into the returns or another taxpayer except in special circumstances. However, when scams take place, allegation of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (Taj Trapezium Matter) 2004 (3) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT , the Division Bench of this Court not only directed CBI to investigate the cases against the bureaucrats but also to enquire the outflow of ₹ 17 crores released by the State of U.P. in respect of project undertaken by NPCC. In that matter, the income tax returns of the former Chief Minister and other officials were ordered to be collected by this Court. They were directed to be collected from various income tax authorities. The point to be noted is that the source of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI in matters involving misappropriation of public funds. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the rival claims made by the respective parties under the documents, annexures and other papers filed in these proceedings. The Registry is directed to send in sealed cover the documents marked as 'A' to 'H' and all the copies of the sale deeds and other statements etc. filed by the parties to the CBI. The CBI may take the assistance of Chartered Accountants, Engineers and certified valuers for evaluation of the properties and proceed with the investigation and enquiry in the matter with an open mind. Thsu, the writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets against the respondents.
3. The necessity of an independent investigation by the CBI.
4. The role of the Income Tax Department and its findings.
5. Public interest and the integrity of public officials.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The petitioner contended that he had no political affiliations and aimed to highlight corruption in the U.P. Administration. The Court noted that the petitioner's writ petition could not be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability merely because of the alleged political connections or the authenticity of certain documents. The Court decided to consider the merits of the case without delving further into the issue of maintainability.

2. Allegations of Corruption and Disproportionate Assets:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents, including a sitting Chief Minister and his family members, had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income by misusing their power and authority. The petitioner provided detailed representations and documents, including sale deeds and affidavits, to support his claims. The respondents denied these allegations, submitting their Income-tax Returns and Wealth Tax Returns in sealed covers, and argued that the properties were acquired legitimately and duly assessed by the Income-tax authorities.

3. Necessity of an Independent Investigation by the CBI:
The Court emphasized the need for an independent agency to scrutinize the voluminous documents, sale deeds, and financial records meticulously. The Court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of the respondents and, if a case was made out, to take further action. The Court highlighted that an independent investigation was essential to verify the allegations of disproportionate assets and to uphold public interest and public morality.

4. Role of the Income Tax Department and Its Findings:
The respondents argued that their assets were duly accounted for in their Income-tax Returns and assessed by the Income-tax Department. However, the Court noted that the Income-tax Department's role was limited to assessing the source of income and tax payments. The Court stated that only an independent agency like the CBI could determine the question of disproportionate assets comprehensively.

5. Public Interest and Integrity of Public Officials:
The Court underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of public officials, especially those holding high public offices. The Court observed that the allegations against the Chief Minister cast a cloud on his integrity and that it was in the public interest to determine the truth of these allegations through a competent forum. The Court emphasized that the Chief Minister should not function under a cloud, and an independent enquiry would serve public interest and vindicate the respondents' honor if the allegations were found untrue.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of the respondents and submit a report to the Union of India. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations but aimed to ensure a fair and thorough investigation. The Court emphasized the need for an independent agency to scrutinize the details meticulously and take necessary actions based on the findings. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs.