Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahara And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

In Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had on 16 March 2011 directed 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 the 2-G Scam.”

Subsequently, Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Assistant Director in the Enforcement Directorate and the officer in charge of the money-laundering aspects of the 2G investigation, issued summons on 2 February 2011 and 30 March 2011 to the Managing Director of M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and M/s India Commercial Corporation Ltd. under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

On 5 May 2011, a journalist named Shri Subodh Jain, representing “Sahara Samay,” sent Shri Rajeshwar Singh a list of 25 questions and indicated that Sahara News Network planned to run a series of stories based on documents allegedly in its possession. Counsel for the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, Shri K.K. Venugopal, produced sealed envelopes containing Shri Singh’s prepared answers to these questions and contended that the questionnaire was meant to intimidate the investigating officer.

Finding a prima facie attempt to interfere with the on-going investigation, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance, issued notice to the concerned media entities, and fixed a schedule for filing replies and affidavits. An undertaking was given on behalf of the respondents that no story or programme concerning Shri Rajeshwar Singh would be published while the petition and the main appeal are pending.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the communication sent by a Sahara Samay reporter to the Enforcement Directorate’s investigating officer amounts to an attempt to interfere with the court-monitored 2G investigation, thereby breaching the Supreme Court’s order dated 16 March 2011 in CPIL v. Union of India.
2. Whether such interference warrants the Court’s suo motu action, issuance of notice, and interim restraints on media publications concerning the investigating officer.

Arguments of the Parties

CBI and Enforcement Directorate (through Shri K.K. Venugopal, Senior Counsel)

• The 25 questions posed by the journalist are “absolutely personal” to Shri Rajeshwar Singh and have no investigative relevance.
• The questionnaire is intended to threaten the officer with adverse publicity and thus to pressurise him not to proceed with the investigation against certain individuals linked to Sahara entities.
• Such conduct violates the Supreme Court’s 16-3-2011 directive prohibiting interference with the investigation.

No detailed arguments from the respondents were recorded at this stage; they instead offered an undertaking not to publish material concerning the officer pending further orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court scrutinised the questionnaire and accepted Shri K.K. Venugopal’s submission that the questions were personal in nature and served no legitimate journalistic purpose related to public interest in the investigation. By linking the timing of the questionnaire to the issuance of summons to Sahara group entities, the Court inferred an effort to intimidate or pressurise the investigating officer.

Given its earlier explicit prohibition on any interference with the 2G investigations, the Court concluded that the conduct warranted immediate judicial intervention. The Court therefore invoked its inherent powers to take suo motu cognizance, signifying the seriousness with which it views potential obstructions to court-monitored investigations.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the apparent interference, issued notice to the concerned Sahara media entities, accepted their undertaking not to publish any story about the investigating officer during the pendency of proceedings, directed filing of reply-affidavits within six weeks, and listed the matter for 11 July 2011.

Implications: The immediate effect is to shield the Enforcement Directorate’s officer from media pressure and to preserve the integrity of the ongoing 2G investigation. The order reinforces the Court’s earlier mandate against interference but does not establish a new doctrinal precedent; its impact is confined to ensuring compliance in this specific investigative context.