- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This order arises in the course of hearing in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 concerning the submission of status reports by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) relating to “Coal Block Allocations,” including the original draft status reports of PE 219 2012 E 0002 and PE 219 2012 E 0004 and their final versions with differences highlighted.
During the hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the CBI, Mr U.U. Lalit, handed over three separate sealed covers containing a note on sharing status reports with the political executive and the draft and final versions of the above status reports. The Court took these on record and directed that they be kept in sealed covers unless ordered otherwise.
The Court also perused an affidavit filed by the Director, CBI dated 26-4-2013, filed pursuant to an earlier order dated 12-3-2013. Upon review, the Court identified multiple aspects requiring clarification by the Director, CBI and issued directions for filing a further affidavit and for listing the matter for further consideration.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, and why, the status report dated 8-3-2013 omitted disclosure to the Court that its draft had been shared with the political executive and officials.
- On what basis the CBI made a statement on 12-3-2013 (through its counsel, the Additional Solicitor General) that the status report dated 8-3-2013 had not been shared with anyone and was meant only for the Court.
- Whether changes were made to the draft status report dated 8-3-2013 after it was shared with the Minister of Law and Justice and Joint Secretary level officers of the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Coal, and if so, at whose instance and to what extent.
- The identification of the two officers (one each from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Coal) referred to in paragraph 4 of the Director’s affidavit.
- The procedure followed by the CBI under its Manual/Guidelines for sharing status reports concerning an ongoing investigation in a sub judice matter where status reports have been called for by the Court.
- The identification of the officers investigating the matter, along with their CVs to be supplied in a sealed cover.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
After perusing the Director, CBI’s affidavit dated 26-4-2013 (filed pursuant to the order dated 12-3-2013), the Court concluded that several matters required clarification. The Court identified specific points: the absence of disclosure in the status report dated 8-3-2013 regarding sharing of the draft with the political executive and officials; the basis for the statement made on 12-3-2013 that the report had not been shared and was meant only for the Court; and the need for particulars about whether changes were made to the draft, at whose instance, and the extent of any changes.
The Court further sought identification details of the officials involved (including the two officers from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Coal), the procedure under the CBI Manual/Guidelines for sharing status reports in an ongoing, sub judice investigation when the Court has called for such reports, and the names and CVs of the investigating officers (to be provided in a sealed cover).
The Court recorded the statement of learned Senior Counsel for the CBI that the required information would be provided by the Director, CBI in an affidavit, and the Court accepted this statement. It also directed that the relevant materials, including the status report dated 8-3-2013, be kept in sealed cover.
Holding and Implications
DIRECTIONS ISSUED: The Court directed the Director, CBI to file an affidavit addressing the specified aspects by 6-5-2013, ordered that the status report dated 8-3-2013 be kept in sealed cover again, and listed the matters for further consideration by the same Bench on 8-5-2013.
The direct effect of the order is to require further clarification from the Director, CBI regarding sharing of the draft status report and related procedural matters, while maintaining confidentiality by keeping the materials in sealed cover. The order schedules the matter for further hearing; no broader implications or new precedent are stated in the text.
Order
1. In the course of hearing, Mr U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) handed over to us three separate sealed covers “Note on the issue of sharing of the status reports with the political executive and the original draft status report of PE 219 2012 E 0002 and PE 219 2012 E 0004 and their final versions with differences highlighted by footnotes (Coal Block Allocations)”. These covers are taken on record and must be kept in sealed covers unless ordered otherwise by the Court.
2. Having perused the affidavit filed by the Director, CBI, on 26-4-2013 pursuant to the order dated 12-3-2013 WP (C) No. 463 of 2012, we are of the view that the following aspects are required to be clarified by him:
(i) As to why in the status report dated 8-3-2013 no disclosure was made to this Court that the draft report has been shared with the political executive and officials.
(ii) What was the basis and reasons for CBI in making the statement on 12-3-2013 through its counsel (Additional Solicitor General) before this Court that the status report dated 8-3-2013 has not been shared with anyone and it is meant only for the Court.
(iii) In the affidavit now filed by the Director, CBI, on 26-4-2013, it is stated that the draft of the status report dated 8-3-2013 was shared with the Minister of Law and Justice as desired by him prior to its submission before this Court and it was also shared with the Joint Secretary level officers each of the Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Coal as desired by them but nothing has been said in the affidavit whether or not changes were made in the draft report and, if yes, at whose instance and the extent of changes and whether besides the three persons mentioned in Para 4 of the affidavit, the draft report was shared with any other person in that meeting.
(iv) The names of the two officers one each of the Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Coal referred to in Para 4 of the affidavit.
(v) The procedure being followed by CBI under the Manual/Guidelines in sharing the status report(s) with regard to ongoing investigation in a sub judice matter where status report(s) have been called for by the Court.
(vi) The names of the officers investigating the matter and their CVs in a sealed cover.
3. Mr U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for CBI, states that the above information shall be given in the affidavit by the Director, CBI. We accept the statement.
4. The affidavit on the above aspects may be filed by the Director, CBI, by 6-5-2013. The status report dated 8-3-2013 submitted by CBI may be kept in sealed cover again.
5. Put up these matters for further consideration by this Bench on 8-5-2013.
Court Masters
Alert