Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

remanded

Attorney(S)
  • Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate [Rohit Kr. Singh, Abhimanue Shrestha (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Rani Mishra, Jatinder Pal Singh and Ms Shruti Dutt, Advocates] for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Jasti Chelameswar
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 120-B IPC
  • Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

remanded

Attorney(S)
  • Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate [Rohit Kr. Singh, Abhimanue Shrestha (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Rani Mishra, Jatinder Pal Singh and Ms Shruti Dutt, Advocates] for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Jasti Chelameswar
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 120-B IPC
  • Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court received information that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered FIR No. 10(A) against a retired High Court Judge under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations, described by the Court as “disturbing,” purportedly touch upon the functioning of the Supreme Court itself. When informed of the urgency at 10:30 a.m., the Bench authorised the matter to be mentioned the same morning and ultimately took it up at 12:45 p.m. The Court issued notice and permitted service by the “dasti” method. During the hearing, the Registry produced a photocopy of proceedings “purportedly issued” by the Chief Justice of India, prompting further judicial action.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, given the gravity of the allegations implicating a retired High Court Judge and the Supreme Court’s institutional interests, the matter should be placed before a Constitution Bench comprising the five senior-most Judges.
  2. Whether interim measures are necessary to secure the CBI case diary and investigative materials pending consideration by the Constitution Bench.

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

The Court emphasised the “disturbing” nature of the allegations, noting that they relate directly to the integrity of the Supreme Court’s own functioning. Recognising both the institutional sensitivity and the public importance of the matter, the Bench concluded that adjudication by a Constitution Bench of the five senior-most Judges is warranted. To prevent any tampering or loss of evidence, the Court further determined that all investigative materials—specifically the case diary and documents collected by the CBI—must be sealed and produced before the Constitution Bench. These steps were deemed necessary to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process and to ensure a transparent and authoritative determination.

Holding and Implications

ORDERED: The case is to be listed before a Constitution Bench consisting of the first five Judges in order of seniority on 13 November 2017. The CBI (second respondent) must place the entire case diary and all investigative materials in a sealed cover before that Bench. Notice is issued, with permission for dasti service.

Implications: The order immediately safeguards investigative records and elevates the matter to the Court’s highest available panel, underscoring the seriousness of allegations touching the judiciary. No new legal precedent is established, but the decision signals the Court’s intention to maintain institutional integrity and public confidence.

Show full summary ...

    Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Of India And Another

    Order

    1. Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

    2. This matter was taken on Board upon being mentioned in the morning at 10.30 a.m On an inquiry from the Bench regarding the urgency in the matter, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a certain case is registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a retired High Court Judge of this country containing serious allegations implicating the said Judge, shown as an accused in FIR No. 10(A) under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC. The FIR contained certain allegations which are disturbing. The allegations pertain to the functioning of this Court. On perusal of the FIR which was placed before us in the morning, we thought it necessary and proper to take up the matter immediately.

    3. Therefore, permission was granted to move the matter today at 12.45 p.m before this Court. Accordingly the papers are placed before us at 12.45 p.m

    4. Mr Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel makes submissions highlighting various aspects of the matter, the details of which we do not propose to make in this order. But, at the same time, we are also duty-bound to place the developments that when the hearing of the matter was in progress, the Officer of the Registry placed a xerox copy of the proceedings purportedly issued by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, a copy of which is annexed to this order.

    5. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that this matter be heard by the Constitution Bench of the first five Judges in the order of seniority of this Court. Having regard to the importance of the matter, we also deem it appropriate that the matter be listed on Monday, 13-11-2017.

    6. Having regard to the nature of the case, it is also necessary to make an interim order regarding the custody of the case diary and all the materials collected by the second respondent during the course of the investigation of the abovementioned crime. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to produce the entire material collected by CBI in the course of the investigation of the crime and keep it in a sealed cover and produce the same before the Constitution Bench on Monday, 13-11-2017.

    7. Communicate this order to the second respondent forthwith.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Of India And Another
    (Nov 9, 2017)