2014 (10) TMI 1077 - HC - Indian Laws

PIL seeking a mandamus directing the CBI to register a case and to undertake investigation in accordance with law on the basis of the statements in a blog (website) about the continuation of an Additional Judge in Madras High Court - commission of various cognizable offences including the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code, 1872 (IPC) relating to screening of offenders - HELD THAT - The validity of the permanent appointment of the Additional Judge of Madras High Court, whose extension of term as Additional Judge was referred to in the blog, was in fact considered by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation in SHANTI BHUSHAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2008 (12) TMI 448 - SUPREME COURT . The allegation was that the appointment was in violation of the law declared in SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION AND S.P. GUPTA VERSUS U.O.I. 1993 (10) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has to be formed collectively after taking into account the views of his senior colleagues who are required to be consulted by him for the formation of opinion. It was alleged by the petitioner therein that no such opinion was formed. The controversy relating to the extension of the term of the said Additional Judge has already been set at rest. Moreover, the learned Judge had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 02.07.2009 and he had also expired shortly thereafter. That being so, we are unable to understand as to how the matter involves public interest to direct an investigation by CBI at this stage, that too on the basis of the statements made on a blog. Reference made to the well settled principle of law that the Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition filed as a PIL and that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the same is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The petitioner should be in a position to demonstrate that he is moving the process of law for the benefit of unrepresented or under-represented strata of the society . It is not required to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking CBI investigation based on a blog's statements about an Additional Judge in Madras High Court.
2. Allegations of corruption, Prevention of Corruption Act violations, and IPC offenses.
3. Failure of authorities to act, mandamus sought to register a case and investigate.
4. Contention of public interest in thorough inquiry and action against offenders.
5. Validity of the Additional Judge's appointment discussed in a previous Supreme Court judgment.
6. Dismissal of the petition due to the matter being settled and lack of public interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, filed a writ petition as a public interest litigation requesting a mandamus for the CBI to register a case and conduct an investigation based on a blog's statements regarding the continuation of an Additional Judge in Madras High Court. The blog alleged various offenses, including corruption and violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC sections related to screening offenders. The petitioner argued that authorities failed to fulfill their statutory duties, justifying the need for CBI intervention. The petitioner emphasized the importance of upholding the justice administration system's integrity by thoroughly investigating the exposed corrupt practices.

The High Court examined the content of the blog, which detailed the extension of the Additional Judge's term in Madras High Court amid corruption allegations. The blog mentioned the involvement of the Intelligence Bureau, Supreme Court collegium, and political pressure influencing the decision to extend the judge's term. However, the Supreme Court had previously addressed the validity of the Additional Judge's appointment in a Public Interest Litigation, concluding that the matter had been settled. The judge in question had retired and passed away, rendering the issue moot. Consequently, the High Court questioned the public interest in initiating a CBI investigation based solely on blog statements.

Furthermore, the High Court highlighted the nature of a blog as a platform for personal opinions and not as a source of evidence. Citing legal principles, the court noted that even newspaper reports are considered hearsay evidence and cannot be solely relied upon for factual allegations. Emphasizing the stringent criteria for entertaining Public Interest Litigations, the court stressed the necessity of demonstrating substantial public interest and genuine harm or injury to society. Given the settled nature of the issue and the lack of ongoing public harm, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that it did not aim to address any public wrong or injury. The writ petition was thus rejected, with no costs imposed.