Indian Bare Acts | Landmark Court Ruling Under The Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988

Regarding Investigation of Corruption Cases against senior Government Officers
VINEET NARAIN CASE (EXCERPTS)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Verma, C.J. - These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India brought in public interest, to begin with, did not appear to have potential of escalating to the dimensions they reached or to give rise to several issues of considerable significance to the implementation of rule of law, which they have during their progress. They began as yet another complaint of inertia by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in matters where the accusation made was against high dignitaries. It was not the only matter of its kind during the recent past. The primary question was: Whether it is within the domain of judicial review and it could be an effective instrument for activating the investigative process which is under the control of the executive? The focus was on the question, whether any judicial remedy is available in such a situation? However, as the case progressed, it required innovation of a procedure within the constitutional scheme of judicial review to permit intervention by the court to find a solution to the problem. This case has helped to develop a procedure within the discipline of law for the conduct of such a proceeding in similar situations. It has also generated awareness of the need of probity in public life and provided a mode of enforcement of accountability in public life. Even though the matter was brought to the court by certain individuals claiming to represent public interest, the procedure devised was to appoint the petitioners' counsel as the amicus curiae and to make such orders from time to time as were consistent with public interest. Intervention in the proceedings by everyone else was shut out but permission was granted to all, who so desired, to render such assistance As they could, and to provide the relevant material available with them to the amicus curiae for being placed before the court for its consideration. In short, the proceedings in this matter have had great educative value and it does appear that it has helped in future decision-making and functioning of the public authorities.

A brief narration of the facts of this case is necessary: On 25.3.1991, one Ashfak Hussain Lone, alleged to be an official of the terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahideen, was arrested in Delhi. Consequent upon his interrogation raids were conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the premises of Surender Kumar Jain, his brothers, relatives and businesses. Along with Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two diaries and two notebooks from the premises. They contained detailed accounts of vast payments made to persons identified only by initials. The initials corresponded to the initials of various high-ranking politicians, in power and out of power, and of high-ranking bureaucrats. Nothing having been done in the matter of investigating the Jains or the contents of their diaries, the present writ petitions were filed on 4.10.1993, in the public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

The gist of the allegations in the writ petitions is that government agencies like the CBI and the Revenue authorities had failed to perform their duties and legal obligations in as much as they had failed to investigate matters arising out of the seizure of the "Jain Diaries"; that the apprehension of terrorists had led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means using tainted funds obtained through "havala" transactions; that this had also disclosed a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, given for unlawful considerations that the CBI and other government agencies had failed to investigate the matter take it to its logical conclusion and prosecute all persons who were found to have committed an offence; that this was done with a view to protect the persons involved, who were very influential and powerful; that the matter disclosed a nexus between crime and corruption at high places in public life and it posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation; that probity in public life, the rule of law and the preservation of democracy required that the government agencies by compelled to duly perform their legal obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against every person involved, irrespective of where he was placed in the political hierarchy. The writ petitions prayed, inter alias for the following relief's:

"[a] that the above said offences disclosed by the facts mentioned in the petition be directed to be investigated in accordance with law;

[b] that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint officers of the police or others in whose integrity, independence and competence this Hon'ble Court has confidence for conducting and/or supervising the said investigation;

[c] that suitable directions be given by this Hon'ble Court and orders issued to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to law;

[f] that directions be given so that such evil actions on the part of the investigating agencies and their political superiors are not repeated in future."

It will be seen that the relief sought in the writ petitions fall into two broad classes. The first class relates to investigations in the matter of the "Jain Diaries". The second class (prayer (f)) relates to the manner in which investigations of offences of a similar nature that may occur hereafter should be conducted.

Background of the case
Independent Review Committee

The IRC is a body constituted by the Central Government itself as a result of its perception that the constitution and functioning of the CBI, CVC and Directorate of Enforcement require a close scrutiny in the background of the recent unsatisfactory functioning of these agencies with a view to improve their functioning. The view taken by the IRC is a reaffirmation of this belief shared by everyone. The preface to the report indicates the reason for the constitution of the IRC and says that :

"In the past several years, there has been progressive increase in allegations of corruption involving public servants. Understandably, cases of this nature have attracted heightened media and public attention. A general impression appears to have gained ground that the Central investigating agencies concerned are subject to extraneous pressures and have been indulging in dilatory tactics in not bringing the guilty to book. The decisions of higher courts to directly monitor investigation in certain cases have added to the aforesaid belief."

There can thus be no doubt that there is need for the exercise we were called upon to perform and which has occasioned consideration of this crucial issue by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred by the Constitution of India. The conclusions reached by the IRC and the recommendations it has made for improving the functioning and thereby the image of these agencies is a further reaffirmation of this general belief. There can also be no doubt that the conclusions reached by the IRC and its recommendations are the minimum which require immediate acceptance and implementation in a bid to arrest any further decay of the polity. It follows that the exercise to be performed now by this Court is really to consider whether any modifications/additions are required to be made to the recommendations of the IRC for achieving the object for which the Central Government itself constituted the IRC. We are informed by the learned Attorney General that further action on the report of the IRC could the learned Attorney General that further action on the report of the IRC could not be taken so far because of certain practical difficulties faced by the Central Government but there is no negative reaction to the report given by the Central Government.

The only caveat entered by the Attorney General is on the basis of a note by an individual Minister in the Central Cabinet in which emphasis has been laid that the ultimate responsibility for the functioning of these agencies to Parliament is that of the Minister concerned and this aspect may be kept in mind. It has been specifically mentioned that the Minister would remain the final disciplinary authority and would have the power to refer complaints against the agency or its officers to an appropriate authority for necessary action. There can be no quarrel with the Minister's ultimate responsibility to Parliament for the functioning of these agencies and he being the final disciplinary authority in respect of the officers of the agency with power to refer complaints against them to the appropriate authority. Some other specific powers of the Minister were indicated as under :

1. The Minister has the power to review the working of the agencies which are under his Department.

2. The Minister has the power to give broad policy directions regarding investigation and prosecution of classes or categories of cases.

3. The Minister has the power to appraise the quality of the work of the Head of the agency as well as other senior officers of the agency.

4. The minister has the power to call for information regarding progress of cases.


It is sufficient to say that the Minister's general power to review the working of the agency and to give broad policy directions regarding the functioning of the agencies and to appraise the quality of the work of the head of the agency and other officers as the executive head is in no way to be diluted. Similarly, the Minister's power to call for information generally regarding the cases being handled by the agencies is not to be taken away. However, all the powers of the Minister are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed entirely by the mandate of law and the statutory duty cast upon them.