- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Others v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
IA No. 73 of 2014 was moved in the long-running 2G Spectrum allocation litigation (Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010). The applicants sought directions restraining the then Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Shri Ranjit Sinha, from participating in the investigation and prosecution of the 2G case and requested that he recuse himself. Earlier, on 15-9-2014, the Court had passed an order concerning the same interlocutory application; that order is now recalled. The present order, dated 20-11-2014, disposes of IA No. 73 (and, consequentially, IA No. 76) after hearing senior counsel for the parties, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Court, and amicus/Advisor to the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the basis of the material placed before the Court, the Director of CBI should be directed to recuse himself and be restrained from interfering in the ongoing investigation and prosecution of the 2G Spectrum allocation case.
- Whether the Court’s earlier order dated 15-9-2014 relating to IA No. 73 required recall to give effect to the above relief.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| (2012) 3 SCC 117 | Order of the Supreme Court appointing a Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G Spectrum case. | Cited only to identify Shri Anand Grover as the existing Special Public Prosecutor during the present hearing; it was not substantively analysed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court expressly refrained from setting out “elaborate reasons” in order to protect “the sanctity and the fair name of the institution” and the reputation of the Office of the Director, CBI. It stated that the information supplied by the applicants was prima facie credible and therefore warranted acceptance. The Court reiterated that succinct reasoning was intentional to avoid tarnishing the institution, yet adequate to justify the relief sought. Regarding a media report implicating DIG Santosh Rastogi as a “mole,” the Court recorded an affidavit from Shri Prashant Bhushan denying Rastogi as his source and, on that basis, held that Rastogi was not leaking information.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court (1) recalled its earlier order dated 15-9-2014 insofar as it related to IA No. 73; (2) directed Shri Ranjit Sinha, Director of CBI, to refrain from any interference in the investigation and prosecution of the 2G Spectrum allocation case and to recuse himself; and (3) ordered that the seniormost officer of the existing CBI investigation team assume charge and continue the proceedings.
Implications: The immediate effect is the removal of the CBI Director from all involvement in the 2G investigation, with operational control transferred to the seniormost investigating officer. The order is confined to the specific case and does not articulate broader precedent, but it underscores the Supreme Court’s willingness to insulate sensitive investigations from potential institutional conflicts.
Order dated 20-11-2014
1. By this application, the applicants seek the following reliefs:
(i) Direct the CBI Director Shri Ranjit Sinha not to interfere in investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G Spectrum allocation being carried out by CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.
(ii) Pass further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
2. We have heard Shri Dushyant Dave and Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the parties and Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed (2012) 3 SCC 117 by this Court in the 2G Spectrum case.
3. To protect and preserve the sanctity and the fair name of the institution including the reputation of the Office of the Director of CBI, we are not deliberately giving out elaborate reasons. It would suffice for us to observe that the information furnished by the applicants is prima facie credible and therefore requires to be accepted.
4. Let it not be said by anybody, that we have not given any reasons while disposing of the application. We are reiterating this statement only to prevent flak from several quarters of the society. We would like to re-emphasise that elaborate reasons are not necessary, only to protect the reputation of CBI from being tarnished.
5. In view of the above, we grant the aforesaid relief sought by the applicants and pass the following orders:
(i) We recall our earlier order passed on 15-9-2014 so far as it relates to IA No. 73 of 2014.
(ii) We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to interfere in the investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G Spectrum allocation that is carried out by CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.
(iii) Shri Ranjit Sinha shall be replaced by the seniormost officer of the investigating team, constituted by CBI to investigate into the case relating to the 2G Spectrum allocation and continue the proceedings further.
6. With the above observations, IA No. 73 of 2014 (application for directions) is disposed of. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to all the parties. In view of the order passed by us in IA No. 73 of 2014, we need not express any opinion on the prayers made in IA No. 76 of 2014 and the same is accordingly disposed of.
7. Shri K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for CBI and Enforcement Directorate has brought to our notice a news item published today in The Times of India, New Delhi. The news item states:
“Mr Ranjit Sinha, Director of CBI, informed the Supreme Court that his DIG, Shri Santosh Rastogi, who is in charge of the 2G Scam probe, “appears” to be the “mole” who was leaking documents and file notings to Aam Aadmi Party leader and Advocate Prashant Bhushan.”
8. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant, files an affidavit before this Court. The affidavit reads as under:
“in the supreme court of india
civil appellate jurisdiction
IA No. 73 of 2014
in
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
In the matter of:
Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others … Appellants;
Union of India and Others … Respondents.
Affidavit on behalf of Prashant Bhushan
I, Prashant Bhushan, s/o Shri Shanti Bhushan, having my office at 301, New Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court, New Delhi-110001 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That I am the counsel for the appellants in the instant proceedings. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and competent and authorised to swear this affidavit.
2. During the hearing of the above application (IA No. 73) on 19-11-2014, a statement was made at the Bar by Shri Vikas Singh, counsel for Shri Ranjit Sinha (Director, CBI) that the information contained in the affidavits filed by the appellants, have been supplied to me by CBI DIG Shri Santosh Rastogi. The said statement has also appeared in newspapers today.
3. I submit that, though I am not in a position to disclose the identity of the source of information, but I can state that the information has not been supplied to me by Shri Rastogi. I do not know Shri Rastogi, have not met him or spoken to him.
Deponent”
9. In view of the affidavit, it is safe to say that Shri Rastogi is not giving any information to anybody else or to Shri Prashant Bhushan. Ordered accordingly.
Court Masters
Order dated 15-9-2014
10. We have Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Ranjit Sinha, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the Director, CBI”) and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel as an Advisor to the Court.
11. We do not intend to say much on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. In our opinion, it is suffice to observe that the affidavit (in IA No. 73) filed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, is not in consonance with Order 9 Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The said provision is quoted hereinbelow:
“13. In this order, ‘affidavit’ includes a petition or other documents required to be sworn or verified; and ‘sworn’ includes affirmed. In the verification of petitions, pleadings or other proceedings, statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements based on information and belief. In the case of statements based on information, the deponent shall disclose the source of his information, including official records.”
In our opinion, before we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel to disclose the source of his information to us which has formed the basis of the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be kept in a sealed cover and to be opened by this Court only. Further, we direct the Registry to keep all the documents and affidavits filed by the Director, CBI in a sealed cover, to be kept safely in the custody of the Secretary General of this Court. List on 22-9-2014.
IA No. 75 of 2014
12. Reply, if any, to IA No. 75 be filed by Shri K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel through Shri B.K Prasad/B.V Balaram Das, learned counsel(s) and reply to IA No. 75, if any, be filed by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel through Shri Chander Prakash, learned counsel within a week's time from today. List on 24-9-2014.
Alert