Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 173 CrPC
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 173 CrPC
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The order concerns ongoing writ petitions—WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and WP (C) No. 463 of 2012—relating to enquiries and investigations conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allocation of coal blocks. Multiple miscellaneous petitions were dealt with on this occasion:

  • Crl. MP No. 22887 of 2013, in which CBI sought permission to add one Investigating Officer (IO) to its existing team of 39 officers.
  • Crl. MP No. 22414 of 2013, filed by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma (petitioner-in-person).
  • Administrative issues concerning proposed non-statutory changes in CBI’s reporting structure and its power to appoint counsel.
  • Compliance monitoring of earlier secrecy directions governing the investigation and the submission of periodic status reports.

The Court had previously issued secrecy directives on 8-5-2013 and 29-8-2013, and had sent notices to seven States on 26-9-2013. The present order deals with requests for enlarging the investigation team, obtaining legal assistance for preparing status reports, filing of affidavits by various States, and scheduling further hearings.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether CBI should be permitted to add one additional Investigating Officer to its existing team.
  2. Whether earlier secrecy directives should be partially modified to allow limited legal assistance to CBI in preparing and submitting status reports.
  3. Procedural directions regarding proposed non-statutory administrative changes in CBI’s functioning and the filing of State and Union affidavits.

Arguments of the Parties

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

  • Requested addition of one Investigating Officer, providing reasons detailed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of its “Note on Administrative Issues.”
  • Sought permission to consult two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel for the preparation of status reports.

Union of India

  • Through the learned Solicitor General, opposed the suggested non-statutory changes that would vest the CBI Director with ex-officio Secretary status and independent power to appoint counsel; sought two weeks to file written objections.
  • Agreed, along with other counsel, to limited modification of secrecy orders so that specific prosecutors could assist CBI in status-report preparation.

Petitioners

  • Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma (petitioner-in-person) supported the need for clarifications on certain State affidavits and concurred in allowing limited legal assistance to CBI for status reports.
  • Counsel for petitioners in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 also agreed to the proposed modification concerning legal assistance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Order dated 8-5-2013; reported at (2014) 2 SCC 703 Maintaining complete secrecy of enquiries and investigations into coal-block allocations; prohibiting access by Ministers and other officials up to the stage of Final Report I. Partially modified to allow consultation with two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel for preparation of status reports.
Order dated 29-8-2013; reported at (2014) 2 SCC 711 Reiteration of secrecy directions up to Final Report I; designation of two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel for assistance at Final Report II stage. Reference made to extend the same legal assistance to status-report preparation, thereby expanding the earlier permission.
Order dated 26-9-2013; reported at (2014) 3 SCC 164 Issuance of notices to seven States concerning the investigation. The current order records compliance by States in filing affidavits pursuant to this notice.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Addition of Investigating Officer: The Court reviewed the reasons provided by CBI in paragraphs 3 and 4 of its administrative note and found them satisfactory, granting the request to expand the investigative team by one officer.

Modification of Secrecy Orders: The Court noted that the status reports on enquiries and investigations spanned 182 pages. In light of the volume and complexity, and with the consent of all principal counsel—including the petitioner-in-person, counsel for the other petitioners, the Solicitor General, and senior counsel for CBI—the Court concluded that limited legal assistance was justified. It therefore partially modified its earlier orders of 8-5-2013 and 29-8-2013, permitting two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel to assist CBI in preparing and submitting status reports, while otherwise maintaining the confidentiality regime.

Non-Statutory Administrative Changes: The Union government expressed opposition to proposed changes that would elevate the CBI Director to ex-officio Secretary status and allow independent appointment of counsel. The Court granted two weeks for the Union to file written objections, keeping the matter pending.

State Affidavits and Further Proceedings: Affidavits from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and West Bengal had been filed; Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh were given one day, and Andhra Pradesh one week, to file theirs. Both the petitioner-in-person and the Union of India were allowed three weeks to clarify specific points arising from these affidavits. The Court scheduled the next hearing for 26-11-2013 at 2 p.m., and directed CBI to file an updated status report (covering progress up to 31-12-2013) by 9-1-2014, with further consideration fixed for 15-1-2014.

Disposition of Crl. MP 22414 of 2013: The petition filed by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma was rejected without recorded reasons, indicating the Court found no merit warranting relief.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Crl. MP 22887 of 2013 is ALLOWED; Crl. MP 22414 of 2013 is REJECTED. The secrecy orders of 8-5-2013 and 29-8-2013 are PARTIALLY MODIFIED to permit limited consultation with two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel for preparation of status reports.

Implications: The CBI gains an additional Investigating Officer and narrowly tailored legal assistance, potentially expediting and enhancing the quality of status reports while maintaining confidentiality of the ongoing probe. No broader precedent is announced; the directions are case-specific and primarily affect procedural management of the coal-block investigation.

    Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others

    Order

    Crl. MP No. 22887 of 2013

    1. By this petition, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has prayed that one more investigating officer (IO) be permitted to be added to the existing team of 39 officers. The reasons for proposed addition are set out in Paras 3 and 4 of the Note on Administrative Issues. Having regard to those reasons, we are satisfied that one IO, whose curriculum vitae has been annexed, may be added to the present team of investigating officers.

    2. Crl. MP No. 22887 of 2013 is granted in terms of clause (a) thereof.

    Crl. MP No. 22414 of 2013

    3. Heard Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-person.

    4. Crl. MP No. 22414 of 2013 is rejected.

    WP (Crl.) No. 120 and WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

    5. With regard to the non-statutory changes in the administrative arrangements, particularly (1) Director, CBI be vested with ex-officio powers of Secretary of the Government of India reporting directly to the Minister, Department of Personnel and Training and (2) power to appoint Special Counsel/Retainer Counsel for CBI, on 10-9-2013, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General sought time to seek instructions.

    6. Today Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General submits that the Central Government is opposed to the above changes. He prays for time to submit objections in writing. He may do so within two weeks.

    7. In pursuance of the order dated 26-9-2013 (2014) 3 SCC 164, notices were issued to the States of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. All the 7 States are now represented. Four States, namely, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and West Bengal have filed their affidavits. On behalf of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, it is submitted that the affidavits are ready and the same will be filed by tomorrow. They may do so by tomorrow.

    8. On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Mr D. Mahesh Babu, learned counsel prays for time for filing affidavit. The same may be done within one week.

    9. Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-person in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General submit that in respect of the affidavits filed by the States certain points need clarification by them. The petitioner Mr Manohar Lal Sharma and the Union of India may file their brief affidavits on certain specific points within three weeks.

    10. Reply to Crl. MP No. 4731 of 2013 may also be filed by the contesting respondents within three weeks.

    11. List this group of matters on 26-11-2013 at 2 p.m

    12. The status reports pertaining to 3 preliminary enquiries in respect of allocation of coal blocks; 2 preliminary enquiries pertaining to missing documents and 14 regular cases have been filed by CBI in compliance with the order dated 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711.

    13. By the order of 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703, the Director, CBI was directed to ensure that secrecy of the enquiries and investigations into allocation of coal blocks is maintained and no access of any nature whatsoever in this regard is provided to any person or authority, including any Minister of the Central Cabinet; Law Officers, Advocate(s) of CBI, Director of Prosecution and officials/officers of the Central Government. The above order was issued in light of the submissions which were made by the learned Attorney General and Mr U.U Lalit, the then counsel for CBI and having regard to the peculiarities of the case.

    14. The above directions insofar as stage up to Final Report I is concerned were reiterated in the subsequent order of 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711.

    15. The status reports filed on 20-10-2013 setting out status of enquiries and investigations as on 18-10-2013 run into 182 pages. Having gone through the status reports, we are of the view that for preparation of status reports, CBI may be permitted to have some legal assistance.

    16. Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-person in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012; Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012; Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General and Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for CBI are agreeable that in modification of the orders dated 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 and 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711, two in-house Prosecutors and one Special Counsel referred to in the order dated 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711, who were permitted to be consulted for framing of Final Report II under Section 173 CrPC may be permitted to be consulted for the purposes of preparation of status reports and their submission before this Court. In partial modification of the earlier orders dated 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 and 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711, we order accordingly.

    17. CBI shall submit further report in respect of the status regarding enquiries/investigation up to 31-12-2013 by 9-1-2014.

    18. For consideration of the further status reports, list these matters on 15-1-2014 at 2 p.m

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others
    (Oct 29, 2013)