2012 (2) TMI 76 - SC - Indian Laws

2G Spectrum Scam PIL for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department in 2G case Held that - Though power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the CBI in a particular manner. However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed u/s 3(2) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 to render assistance to the Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case. This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act. Directions for compliance of aforesaid are issued Decided in favor of petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation.
2. Dismissal of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court.
3. Directions issued by the Supreme Court to CBI and other agencies.
4. Monitoring of the investigation by the Court.
5. Role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in the investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of Independent Persons to Assist the Court in Monitoring the Investigation:
The appellants requested the appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the Income Tax Department in the '2G case'. This request was strongly opposed by the counsel for the CBI, who argued that the CBI and other agencies had effectively investigated the case for over a year and that the Court had expressed satisfaction with the investigation's progress. The Court ultimately decided that there was no justification for appointing any other person to monitor the investigation, as this would interfere with the functioning of the CBI. Instead, the Court directed that the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner should render assistance in monitoring the investigation, aligning with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

2. Dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Delhi High Court:
The appellants had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into the '2G Spectrum Scam', which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 25.5.2010. The appellants then challenged this order in the Supreme Court.

3. Directions Issued by the Supreme Court to CBI and Other Agencies:
The Supreme Court, by its order dated 16.12.2010, granted leave and issued several directions to the CBI, including conducting a thorough investigation into the issues highlighted in the reports of the Central Vigilance Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The CBI was directed to probe the grant of licenses to ineligible applicants, the violation of terms and conditions, and the loss to the public exchequer. The Court also directed the CBI to investigate the grant of huge loans by public sector and other banks to companies that obtained licenses in 2008 and to share information with the Directorate of Enforcement and the Income Tax Department to ensure that the investigation was not hampered.

4. Monitoring of the Investigation by the Court:
The Court had been monitoring the investigation and had received progress reports from the CBI, the Directorate of Enforcement, and the Income Tax Department. The Court had also previously decided the issue relating to the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. The Court emphasized that it could not issue directions regarding the manner of investigation, as this would interfere with the functioning of the CBI, a statutory body established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

5. Role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in the Investigation:
The Court referred to the directions given in Vineet Narain's case and the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, which require the CVC to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in matters relating to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the CVC cannot interfere with the manner and method of investigation. The Court directed that future reports of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies should be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes, and the Commissioner should examine the reports and send their observations to the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no need to appoint independent persons to monitor the investigation, as the CBI and other agencies had been conducting the investigation satisfactorily. Instead, the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner were directed to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation, ensuring compliance with the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The Court's directions were not a reflection on the integrity or competence of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies.

← Previous Next →