- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Others v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court of India issued this order during ongoing proceedings related to the so-called “2G Scam.” At the outset, the Attorney General produced a letter from the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court confirming the nomination of Shri O.P. Saini, Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 2, Patiala House Courts, to try all cases arising out of the 2G investigation. The Court noted the Attorney General’s commitment that the Central Government would, by 29-03-2011, issue two separate notifications under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, formally establishing a Special Court for exclusive trial of 2G-related offences.
Shri K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), undertook to recommend a Special Public Prosecutor. The Court examined the latest sealed status report filed by CBI and directed that the report be resealed. The matter was then adjourned to 29-03-2011 with directions that transcripts of tapes prepared by the Income Tax Department and a further status report be produced in sealed cover on that date.
Several interlocutory applications (IAs 5–9 of 2011) were also addressed, primarily concerning requests for intervention or other procedural relief by third parties such as the Cellular Operators Association of India and Idea Cellular Ltd.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 560 | Referenced to clarify the scope of earlier directions in spectrum matters. | The Court held that its order dated 16-12-2010 in this case “has nothing to do with the auction of 3-G spectrum,” thereby disposing of IA 7 of 2011 filed by Idea Cellular Ltd. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Special Court: The Court accepted the Delhi High Court’s nomination of Shri O.P. Saini and directed the Central Government to issue statutory notifications by 29-03-2011 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act to constitute a Special Court exclusively for 2G matters.
2. Sealed Status Report: After perusing the latest CBI status report, the Court ordered it to be resealed and kept on record, indicating continued judicial supervision of the investigation.
3. Future Material: The Court required production, in sealed cover, of the Income Tax Department’s tape transcripts and an updated investigation report on the next date of hearing.
4. Non-Interference Directive: The bench explicitly warned that “no one including the newspapers shall interfere” with the ongoing CBI and ED investigations, and stated that any such attempt would invite “serious cognizance.”
5. Intervention Requests (IA 5): The application by Cellular Operators Association of India and others to intervene was rejected for lack of “valid ground or justification,” with an added clarification that the CBI investigation would not prejudice other pending cases.
6. Idea Cellular’s Application (IA 7): The Court found that its earlier judgment in Centre for Public Interest Litigation did not pertain to 3-G spectrum auctions and therefore disposed of IA 7.
7. Other IAs: IA 6 was adjourned; IA 8 was allowed with liberty to intervene; IA 9 was listed for 29-03-2011.
Holding and Implications
ADJOURNED with directions. The Court set 29-03-2011 as the next date, ordered the Government to notify a Special Court, required further sealed materials, rejected IA 5, disposed of IA 7 and IA 8, and listed IA 6 and IA 9 for future consideration.
Implications: The order moves the 2G investigation toward trial by mandating the creation of an exclusive Special Court and appointing associated prosecutorial infrastructure, while safeguarding the investigation from external interference. No new legal precedent was set beyond these procedural directives.
Order
1. At the commencement of hearing, the learned Attorney General placed before the Court letter dated 14-3-2011 sent to him by the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi conveying the decision taken by the High Court to nominate Shri O.P Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, who is presently posted as Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 2, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts as the Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to what has been described as 2G Scam exclusively.
2. The learned Attorney General gave out that he would ensure that two separate notifications are issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption 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 pertaining to what has been termed as 2G Scam and other related offences. The learned Attorney General submitted that appropriate notifications will be issued on or before 29-3-2011.
3. Shri K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate assured the Court that he will suggest the name of an advocate, who can be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the cases before the Special Court. Shri Venugopal then placed before the Court the latest status report (2 sets) prepared by CBI (as on 14-3-2011) in sealed envelopes. The sealed envelopes were opened in the Court. We have perused the report. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the report. This direction has been complied with.
4. For further consideration, the case is adjourned to 29-3-2011, on which date transcript of the tapes prepared by the Income Tax Department, which was made available to the Central Bureau of Investigation, be produced before the Court in a sealed envelope along with the latest report on the status of investigation. The request made by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA No. 10660 of 2010 for appointment of two independent persons to assist the Court will be considered on the next date of hearing.
5. While adjourning the case, we make it clear that no one including the newspapers shall interfere with the functioning of the CBI team and the officers of the Enforcement Directorate who are investigating what has been described as 2G Scam and the Court will take serious cognizance of any endeavour made by any person or group of persons in this regard.
IA No. 5 of 2011
6. This is an application by Cellular Operators Association of India and three others for being allowed to act as an intervenor in the proceedings of Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010.
7. We have heard Shri F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants; Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Reliance Infocom.
8. In our view, there is no valid ground or justification to entertain the prayer made in the application. The application is accordingly disposed of. It is needless to say that the investigation which is being carried out by CBI pursuant to the order passed by this Court shall not adversely affect or influence adjudication of any other case which may be pending before other court.
IA No. 6 of 2011
9. Adjourned to 29-3-2011.
IA No. 7 of 2011
10. This application has been filed by Idea Cellular Ltd. in the context of order dated 4-3-2011 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Petition No. 51 of 2011.
11. We have heard Dr A.M Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant. In our view, the order dated 16-12-2010 passed by this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2011) 1 SCC 560 has nothing to do with the auction of 3-G spectrum. The application is accordingly disposed of.
IA No. 8 of 2011
12. The application is disposed of by giving liberty to the applicant to act as an intervenor.
IA No. 9 of 2011
13. List on 29-3-2011.
Court Masters
Alert