K.S.P Radhakrishnan, J.— We are, in these cases, called upon to examine the question whether two orders passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 and 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G Scam related cases, are liable to be recalled, dehors the rights guaranteed to the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case.
2. Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, in which the abovementioned orders have been passed, was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by special leave, praying for a Court-monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or by a Special Investigating Team into what was described as the 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to investigate the role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister for Department of Telecommunications (DoT), senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and others. Before this Court, it was pointed out that CBI had lodged a first information report on 21-10-2009 alleging that during the years 2000-2008 certain officials of the DoT entered into a criminal conspiracy with certain private companies and misused their official position in the grant of unified access licences causing wrongful loss to the nation, which was estimated to be more than Rs 22,000 crores. CBI, following that, registered Case No. RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 (2G Spectrum Case) on 21-10-2009 under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against a former Cabinet Minister and others.
3. Before this Court parties produced large number of documents, including the performance audit report (draft and final) prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on the issue of licence and allocation of 2G Spectrum by DoT, Ministry of Communications and Information and Technology for the period from 2003-2004 to 2009-2010. The report of CAG, was submitted to the President of India, as per Article 151 of the Constitution of India. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) also conducted an inquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences. CVC on 12-10-2009 had forwarded the enquiry report to the Director, CBI to investigate into the matter to establish the criminal conspiracy in the allocation of 2G Spectrum under UASL policy of DoT and to bring to book all wrongdoers.
4. After taking into consideration of all those factors, including the report of CVC as well as the findings recorded by CAG, this Court agreed for a Court-monitored investigation and held as follows: (CPIL case (2011) 1 SCC 560)
“18. … We are, prima facie, satisfied that the allegations contained in the writ petition and the affidavits filed before this Court, which are supported not only by the documents produced by them, but also the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the Director, CBI on 12-10-2009 and the findings recorded by the CAG in the Performance Audit Report, need a thorough and impartial investigation. However, at this stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint a special team to investigate what the appellants have described as 2G Spectrum Scam because the Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid down in Vineet Narain case (1996) 2 SCC 199 and orders passed in other cases, agreed for a Court-monitored investigation.”
5. This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated investigation by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, gave the following directions vide its order dated 16-12-2010 (2011) 1 SCC 560: (CPIL case (2011) 1 SCC 560)
“(i) CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into various issues highlighted in the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the Director, CBI vide letter dated 12-10-2009 and the report of the CAG, who have prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to the public exchequer running into several thousand crores. CBI should also probe how licences were granted to large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsible for the same and why TRAI and DoT did not take action against those licensees who sold their stakes/equities for many thousand crores and also against those who failed to fulfil rollout obligations and comply with other conditions of licence.
(ii) CBI shall conduct the investigation without being influenced by any functionary, agency or instrumentality of the State and irrespective of the position, rank or status of the person to be investigated/probed.
(iii) CBI shall, if it has already not registered first information report in the context of the alleged irregularities committed in the grant of licences from 2001 to 2006-2007, now register a case and conduct thorough investigation with particular emphasis on the loss caused to the public exchequer and corresponding gain to the licensees/service providers and also on the issue of allowing use of dual/alternate technology by some service providers even before the decision was made public vide press release dated 19-10-2007.
(iv) CBI shall also make investigation into the allegation of grant of huge loans by the public sector and other banks to some of the companies which have succeeded in obtaining licences in 2008 and find out whether the officers of DoT were signatories to the loan agreement executed by the private companies and if so, why and with whose permission they did so.
(v) The Directorate of Enforcement/agencies concerned of the Income Tax Department shall continue their investigation without any hindrance or interference by anyone.
(vi) Both the agencies i.e CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement shall share information with each other and ensure that the investigation is not hampered in any manner whatsoever.
(vii) The Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) shall, after completion of analysis of the transcripts of the recording made pursuant to the approval accorded by the Home Secretary, Government of India, hand over the same to CBI to facilitate further investigation into the FIR already registered or which may be registered hereinafter.”
6. CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to apprise this Court of the various stages of investigation and this Court, on 10-2-2011, passed an order (2013) 8 SCC 18 stating that since this Court is monitoring the investigation of 2G Spectrum Scam no court shall pass any order which may, in any manner, impede the investigation being carried out by CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement (in para 8 therein).
7. The learned Attorney General for India, it was pointed out, had written to the Law Minister on the issue of creation of separate Special Court for dealing with the cases relating to 2G Scam and, for the said purpose, the Law Minister, in turn, had written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking nomination of a Special Court for the said purpose. The learned Attorney General submitted before this Court on 16-3-2011 (2011) 15 SCC 169 that the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi had conveyed his decision to nominate Shri O.P Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, as the Special Judge to take up the trial of cases relating to what has been described as 2G Scam. The Court was also informed that two separate notifications would be issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3(1) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of the Special Court to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G Scam and other related offences. Following that, two Notifications dated 28-3-2011 were published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on Monday, 28-3-2011.
8. CBI submitted before this Court on 1-4-2011 (2014) 3 SCC 162 that a notification had been issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act by the State Government for entrusting the case relating to death of Sadiq Batcha to CBI and CBI had indicated that it had no objection to take up the investigation. CBI also submitted before this Court that a Special Public Prosecutor had to be appointed to lead and supervise the prosecution of the case relating to the 2G Scam for which CBI had suggested the name of Shri U.U Lalit, Senior Advocate of this Court.
9. CBI, after completion of the investigation in the main case, noticed the commission of various other offences during 2007-2009 punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused persons, namely, Shri A. Raja and others and the following substantive offences were stated to have been made out against the following accused persons:
“(a) Shri A. Raja, the then MoC&IT — the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.
(b) Shri Siddartha Behura, the then Secretary, Department of Telecom — the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.
(c) Shri R.K Chandolia, the then PS to MoC&IT — the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
(d) Shri Shahid Usman Balwa, Director, M/s Swan Telecom (P) Ltd.; Shri Vinod Goenka, Director, M/s Swan Telecom (P) Ltd. and M/s Swan Telecom (P) Ltd. [now M/s Etisalat DB Telecom (P) Ltd.] through its Director — offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC.
(e) Shri Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Ltd. and M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) (P) Ltd. through its Director —offences punishable under Section 420 IPC.
(f) Shri Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director, Reliance ADA Group, Shri Hari Nair, Senior Vice-President of Reliance ADA Group and Shri Surendra Pipara, Senior Vice-President of Reliance ADA Group and M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. through its Director — offences punishable under Section 109 read with Section 420 IPC.”
10. CBI, on the basis of the investigation conducted, submitted a charge-sheet against the abovementioned persons/companies before a Special Judge on 2-4-2011 and Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on the same day.
11. This Court undertook the monitoring of the investigation in view of the prayers made by the appellants and the request made by the prosecuting agency and the Government of India, having regard to the larger public interest involved and the necessity of a proper investigation and also with the ultimate object of unearthing the crime.
12. The counsel appearing for CBI suggested to this Court, on 11-4-2011, the name of Shri U.U Lalit, Senior Advocate, for the conduct of the criminal prosecution in the case on behalf of CBI as well as the Directorate of Enforcement and the Court on that date inter alia ordered (2012) 3 SCC 117 as follows: (CPIL case (2012) 3 SCC 117)
“30. We also make it clear that any objection about the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the trial can be made only before this Court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.
31. All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case.”
13. We found, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 that no court should entertain any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the trial, large number of writ petitions were seen filed before the Delhi High Court praying for stay of the trial proceedings on one or the other ground. CBI noticing that entertaining of those cases would violate the order passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117, filed an application before this Court for summoning the records of Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 1587, 1588, 913, 111, 207, 1478, 1751, 1752, 1754, 206, 159 and 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 129 and 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 467 of 2012 and Criminal MC No. 1060 of 2012 pending before the Delhi High Court and also prayed for stay of all the proceedings of these cases.
14. This Court felt entertaining those cases by the Delhi High Court, at this stage, would violate the order passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117, passed an order on 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011 staying those proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court.
15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 548 of 2012, prayed for recalling orders dated 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 and 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011 on the ground that those orders would violate the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for moving the High Court. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the remedy, if at all, available under Article 32 of the Constitution is limited to safeguarding the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution while the remedies available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have a wider scope, which cannot be taken away by the impugned orders passed by this Court while monitoring the 2G Scam.
16. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the impugned orders have the effect of taking away the power of the court in granting reasonable adjournments under Section 309 CrPC and submitted that neither sub-section (4) of Section 4 nor Section 19(3) of the PC Act can take away that right of the petitioners, but has been effectively curtailed by the impugned orders passed by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this Court exercising powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, has the power to only monitor the investigation and once the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court should leave the matter to the trial court safeguarding the rights of parties in questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the trial court in appropriate forums. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (8) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 and Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199.
17. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that right to fair trial is a right guaranteed to the parties under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned order has the effect of negating those rights by shutting out all remedies available to the parties under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to move the High Court. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 and submitted that in appropriate cases this Court has got the power to recall its earlier order in the interest of justice, if it is satisfied that its directions will result in the deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens or any other legal rights.
18. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the rights conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the same cannot be taken away by exercising powers under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
19. Shri Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the power of the court to monitor the criminal investigation should stop once the charge-sheet has been filed, leaving the trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with the law. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat (2011) 12 SCC 302 and the judgment in Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 354.
20. Shri K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI, submitted that there are no justifiable reasons for recalling the impugned orders since those orders had been passed in the larger public interest and that too based on the request made by the Government of India virtually inviting this Court's intervention for monitoring the investigation relating to 2G Scam. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the CAG report as well as the report sent by CVC to CBI and submitted that those reports would highlight the magnitude of loss suffered by the public exchequer, which has been revealed by the investigation conducted by CBI. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this Court has undertaken monitoring of the investigation due to the involvement of highly placed officers of DoT and the then Union Minister for Telecommunications, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats and businessmen.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this Court, while issuing the orders dated 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 or 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011, has neither interfered with the proceedings pending before the Special Court, nor attempted to supervise or investigate the trial proceedings. On the other hand, this Court only ensured that the progress of the trial be not impeded and the trial should go on day-to-day basis. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this Court has reserved its powers to entertain any challenge against the orders passed by the Special Judge under Articles 136, 32 as well as Article 142 of the Constitution and hence, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners.
22. We may, at the very outset, point out that CBI as well as the Enforcement Directorate are yet to complete the investigation of the cases relating to 2G Scam and the case which is being tried by the Special Judge is only one amongst them, wherein the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is in progress. This Court, taking into consideration the width and ambit of the investigation which even spreads overseas and the larger public interest involved, passed the orders impugned, reserving the right of all, including the accused persons, to move this Court if their prayer would amount to staying or impeding the progress of the trial. In case they have any grievance against the orders passed by the Special Judge during trial, they are free to approach this Court so that the progress of the trial would not be hampered by indulging in cumbersome and time-consuming proceedings in the other forums, thereby stultifying the peremptory direction given by this Court for day-to-day trial.
23. Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India enables this Court to pass such orders, which are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and, any order so made, shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. The parties, in such a case, cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 CrPC so as to interfere with those orders passed by this Court, in exercise of its constitutional powers conferred under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Or, else, the parties will move courts inferior to this Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 CrPC, so as to defeat the very purpose and object of the various orders passed by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Public interest
24. Public interest compelled this Court to take up the investigation in 2G Scam related cases in exercise of its powers under Article 136 read with Article 142, that too, on a request made by the Central Government.
25. CAG is stated to be the most important officer under the Constitution of India and his duty, being the guardian of the public purse, is to see that not a farthing of it is spent without the authority of Parliament. Article 149 of the Constitution of India empowers CAG to perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and the State and audit plays an important role in the scheme of Parliamentary financial control and it is also directed towards discovering waste, extravagance and disallow any expenditure violating the Constitution, or any law. CAG, in its report submitted to the President of India under Article 151 of the Constitution of India, has commented upon the manner in which the unified access licences were granted and projected that it caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs 1.76 lakh crores. Of course, some acrimony had erupted between the Central Government and CAG's estimate of loss, but it is reported to be substantial.
26. CVC also conducted an enquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences. CVC, on 12-10-2009, had forwarded the enquiry report to that effect to the Directorate of CBI.
27. The nation and the people of this country are seriously concerned with the outcome of cases involving larger public interest, like one concerning 2G Scam and this Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, has got the duty and obligation to see that the larger public interest and the interest of the nation is preserved and protected. When larger public interest is involved, it is the responsibility of the constitutional court to assure judicial legitimacy and accountability. Public interest demands timely resolution of cases relating to 2G Scam. Prolonged litigation undermines the public confidence and weakens the democracy and the rule of law.
28. Parliament, in its wisdom, has also noticed the necessity of early disposal of cases relating to bribery and corruption. Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reflects the will of Parliament that a Special Judge shall hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 19(3)(c) also states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no court shall stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of the revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. Statutory provisions highlight the imperative need to eradicate the evils of bribery and corruption. Larger public interest should have precedence over the prayers of the petitioners, especially when this Court has safeguarded their rights and given freedom to them to move this Court, either under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Article 139-A also reflects the larger public interest, which enables this Court to transfer certain cases which involve substantial questions of law, from one High Court to another or to this Court, in such an event, it cannot be contended that the parties are deprived of their rights to adjudicate their grievances under Articles 226, 227 or Section 482 CrPC, before the High Court.
Court-monitored investigation
29. Monitoring of criminal investigation is the function of investigating agency and not that of the court — either of the superior court or of the trial court. But unsolved crimes, unsuccessful prosecution, unpunished offenders and wrongful convictions bring our criminal justice system in disrepute. Crores and crores of taxpayers' money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnishes the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, court will face with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of law.
30. More and more demands are now coming before the courts for their monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. That burden this Court has discharged in various cases like Vineet Narain case (1996) 2 SCC 199 and Gujarat Communal Riot case (2011) 12 SCC 302, etc. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper court, the process of court-monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G Scam related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings.
31. We also, therefore, find no basis in the contention of the petitioners that the orders dated 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 and 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011 have the effect of monitoring the trial proceedings. No court, other than the court seized of the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. The order dated 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse the courts' system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system's procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to cooperate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business.
32. We fail to see how the principle laid down by this Court in A.R Antulay case (1988) 2 SCC 602 would apply to the facts of these cases. We have found no error in the orders passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 or on 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011. Therefore, the question of rectifying any error does not arise. On the other hand, as we have already indicated, the purpose and object of passing those orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial, that too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not only in the various provisions of the PC Act, 1988 but also falls within the realm of judicial accountability.
33. We also find no reason to lay down any guidelines as prayed for by the petitioners in a Court-monitored investigation. In a Court-monitored investigation, as already pointed out the Court is not expected to interfere with the trial proceedings. The conduct of the trial is the business of the trial Judge and not the court monitoring the investigation. A superior court exercising the appellate power or constitutional power, if gives a direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is not interfering with the trial proceedings but only facilitating the speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That being the factual situation in these cases, the principle laid down by this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (6) v. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC 356, Brij Narain Singh v. Adya Prasad (2008) 11 SCC 558 and Anukul Chandra Pradhan (1996) 6 SCC 354 are not applicable.
34. We, therefore, find no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court on 11-4-2011 (2012) 3 SCC 117 or 9-11-2012 IA Nos. … of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1589 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 207 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1478 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1751 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1752 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2011, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal MC No. 67 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 656 of 2012, Criminal MC No. 4199 of 2011. The writ petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed, so also IAs Nos. 59, 61, 63 and 68 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010.