B.P Singhal v. State Of T.N And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This proceeding arises from a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, presented as a public interest litigation, seeking transfer of investigation in Crime Case No. 914 of 2004 from the Tamil Nadu State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Upon considering the averments in the petition and after hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Court found that the petitioner had not established locus standi as a “person aggrieved.”

The Court further noted that the petition lacked material particulars: the allegations were largely based on news reports rather than personal knowledge, there was no indication that the petitioner verified the allegations, and neither a copy of the FIR nor other investigative materials were placed on record. Additionally, none of the accused—whose interests would be directly affected—were impleaded, and the petitioner expressly stated he was not seeking relief for the accused.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner had locus standi as a “person aggrieved” to maintain a petition under Article 32 seeking transfer of investigation in a purported public interest matter.

Whether, in the absence of material particulars (including reliance on unverified news reports, non-filing of the FIR or supporting documents, and non-joinder of accused), the Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to transfer the investigation from the State Police to the CBI.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Sought transfer of investigation of Crime Case No. 914 of 2004 from the Tamil Nadu State Police to the CBI.

Relied on the decisions in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, Munir Alam v. Union of India, Vineet Narain v. Union of India, and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma to support a court-directed transfer or specific mode of investigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143	Cited by the petitioner to show that courts have directed investigation in a particular manner or by a particular agency.	The Court held such decisions were based on the specific facts of those cases and did not lay down a general principle aiding the petitioner here.
Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397	Cited to support court-directed transfer or supervision of investigation.	Distinguished as fact-specific; not laying down a rule that would assist the petitioner in this case.
Munir Alam v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 248	Referenced to support intervention in investigation; noted that the petitioner there was the father of a deceased victim.	Distinguished: in Munir Alam the petitioner had a direct nexus (father of the deceased), whereas in the present case the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199	Cited to show instances where the Court directed investigation by a particular agency.	Treated as fact-dependent; no general legal principle extracted to aid the present petitioner.
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222	Cited in support of directing the mode or agency of investigation.	Held to be based on its own facts and not establishing a rule assisting the petitioner.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143

Cited by the petitioner to show that courts have directed investigation in a particular manner or by a particular agency.

The Court held such decisions were based on the specific facts of those cases and did not lay down a general principle aiding the petitioner here.

Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397

Cited to support court-directed transfer or supervision of investigation.

Distinguished as fact-specific; not laying down a rule that would assist the petitioner in this case.

Munir Alam v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 248

Referenced to support intervention in investigation; noted that the petitioner there was the father of a deceased victim.

Distinguished: in Munir Alam the petitioner had a direct nexus (father of the deceased), whereas in the present case the petitioner lacked locus standi.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199

Cited to show instances where the Court directed investigation by a particular agency.

Treated as fact-dependent; no general legal principle extracted to aid the present petitioner.

State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222

Cited in support of directing the mode or agency of investigation.

Held to be based on its own facts and not establishing a rule assisting the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Locus standi: The Court was “not satisfied that the petitioner has satisfied the test of being a person aggrieved or having locus standi” to maintain the Article 32 petition. This threshold deficiency undermined the maintainability of the petition.

Lack of material particulars: The petition’s averments were largely based on news reports rather than personal knowledge, with no indication that the petitioner had verified the assertions. Critical documents, including the FIR and other materials necessary to form an opinion on the investigation’s subject matter, were not produced.

Non-joinder of necessary parties: None of the accused, who would be vitally interested and directly affected by any order, were impleaded. The petitioner also stated he did not seek relief for the accused, further weakening the petition’s foundation.

Precedents distinguished: While the petitioner cited several Supreme Court decisions, the Court observed that:

In Munir Alam, the petitioner was the father of a deceased victim, demonstrating direct standing.
In the other cited cases, directions regarding investigation were issued based on the particular facts and circumstances of those matters, and they did not lay down a general rule applicable here.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction: Given the lack of standing and the petition’s deficiencies, the Court found no case for invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to transfer the investigation.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED IN LIMINE.

Implications: The requested transfer of investigation from the Tamil Nadu State Police to the CBI was denied, and the Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction at the petitioner’s instance. The decision turns on the petitioner’s lack of locus standi and inadequate supporting material. The order has direct effect on the parties and does not articulate a new legal rule or broader precedent beyond distinguishing the cited cases as fact-specific.

B.P Singhal v. State Of T.N And Others

Order

1. The principal relief sought for in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, and purporting to be a petition in public interest, is to transfer investigation in Crime Case No. 914 of 2004 from the Tamil Nadu State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On the averments made in the petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that the petitioner has satisfied the test of being a person aggrieved or having locus standi for filing the petition.

2. Moreover, we find that the petition is lacking in material particulars. All the averments made in the petition are based, by and large, on news reports and not on personal knowledge. The petition does not state that the petitioner has taken any care to verify himself the correctness of the averments made. The copy of FIR or any other papers enabling formation of an opinion as to the averments forming subject-matter of investigation have not been brought on record. None of the accused persons, who would be vitally interested in the hearing and who would really be the persons affected, have been joined as party to the petition. On the contrary, vide list of dates (p. A of the petition), the petitioner alleges that he is not claiming any relief for the accused person.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in R.S Sodhi v. State of U.P 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143, Gudalure M.J Cherian v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 397, Munir Alam v. Union of India (1999) 5 SCC 248, Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199 and State of Bihar v. P.P Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. Insofar as Munir Alam (1999) 5 SCC 248 is concerned, the petition was filed by the father of a person who had died in an incident of firing. In all the other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court was inclined to direct investigation in a particular manner or by a particular investigating agency based on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. The cases do not lay down any such law as would help the petitioner in this particular case.

4. In the light of what has been stated hereinabove, a case for invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court at the instance of the petitioner is not made out. The petition is dismissed in limine.

Court Masters

(Record of Proceedings),Writ Petition (C) No. 653 of 2004, decided on November 25, 2004

B.P Singhal v. State Of T.N And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

B.P Singhal v. State Of T.N And Others

Comments