(2015) 17 SCC 262(1)
Order dated 1-3-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with IA No. 5
1. At the commencement of further hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate produced a sealed envelope (two sets) and stated that the same contains the progress report dated 1-3-2011. The sealed cover was opened in the Court.
(2015) 17 SCC 262(2)
Order dated 15-3-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
2. At the commencement of further hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate placed before the Court the print dated 7-3-2011 taken out from the website of Tehelka magazine. He also placed before the Court a copy of the inquiry report dated 8-3-2011 prepared by the Additional Director, Directorate of Enforcement in the light of the material published on the website of the magazine and also the magazine dated 19-3-2011 and submitted that the Court should take serious note of the fact that totally false story has been published in the magazine and on its website.
3. Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General also made available a sealed envelope (two sets) containing latest report prepared by the Enforcement Directorate. The sealed envelopes were opened. We have cursorily perused the report.
4. Since the Court's time is over, further consideration is adjourned for a day. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the report of the Enforcement Directorate and make the same available tomorrow at the hearing of the case. List on 16-3-2011. To be taken up at 10.30 a.m.
5. The issue relating to establishment of the Special Court to deal with all matters relating to what has been described as 2G Scam will also be considered tomorrow.
6. Interlocutory Applications Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be considered after latest report of CBI is perused and the issue raised today is considered.
(2015) 17 SCC 263
Order dated 29-3-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
IA No. 6 of 2011
7. Copies of the application be served upon the Union of India and other official respondents. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. For consideration of the application, the case be listed on 3-5-2011.
8. At the commencement of hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate produced two reports in sealed covers. One sealed cover contains the progress report prepared by the Enforcement Directorate and the other sealed cover contains the progress report prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation along with the analysis of the calls of Neera Radia made by the Income Tax Department and the Central Bureau of Investigation. Shri Venugopal read out the relevant portions of the two reports.
9. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the reports immediately. This direction has been complied with.
10. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant filed an application in the Court with a prayer that a direction be issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation to undertake investigation into the death of Sadiq Batcha, who was one of the most important link in the 2G Spectrum Scam being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Copies of the application have been made available to the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate. List the application on 1-4-2011. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
11. Shri Prashant Bhushan also made a prayer that Respondent 4 may be directed to submit the status report. The prayer of the learned counsel is reasonable and merits acceptance. Therefore, we direct Respondent 4 to submit the status report within four weeks.
12. Ms Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General produced xerox copies of Notifications dated 28-3-2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Law & Justice and Legislative Affairs and gave out that the Notifications, which have already been sent for publication in the Official Gazette, are likely to be published today itself. The learned Additional Solicitor General may inform the Court tomorrow about the publication of the Notifications in the Official Gazette.
(2015) 17 SCC 264(1)
Order dated 30-3-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
13. The learned Additional Solicitor General has handed over copies of the Gazette of India dated 28-3-2011 and Delhi Gazette dated 28-3-2011, in which the Notifications issued by the respective Governments have been published. The same be kept on the file.
(2015) 17 SCC 264(2)
Order dated 4-4-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IA No. 10 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
14. In furtherance of the Court's order dated 1-4-2011 (2014) 3 SCC 162, Ms Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General has today placed before the Court xerox copy of Letter dated 4-4-2011 sent to her by the Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. Paras 2 and 3 of that Letter are as under:
“2. CBI has communicated its willingness to take over the investigation of Crime No. 560 of 2011 at E-3 Tenyampet Police Station regarding the reported suicide of Sadiq Batcha, Chennai. The matter is under process in this Department for approval of the competent authority [MOS(PP)].
3. As MOS(PP) is currently on tour, a final decision in the matter is likely to be taken within a week's time.”
15. The learned Additional Solicitor General also gave out that in view of the consent given by the State Government and the willingness shown by the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation of Crime No. 560 of 2011 in relation to the death of Sadiq Batcha at Chennai, appropriate notification will be issued by the Government of India.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Government of India to issue the requisite notification within three days. Thereafter, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall take over the investigation of the case. List on 5-4-2011. To be taken up at 12.50 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 265(1)
Order dated 27-4-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IA No. 10 and IA No. … in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
17. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate handed over two sealed envelopes, which were opened in the Court. The envelopes contain the investigation report of the Directorate of Enforcement for the period from 29-3-2011 to 25-4-2011. Shri Venugopal took us to some important paragraphs of the report and submitted that the action proposed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, will, as far as possible, be taken within a period of two months against the companies which have been mentioned in the report.
18. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelopes. The needful has been done.
19. Shri Venugopal then handed over two sealed envelopes containing the progress report prepared by CBI. The envelopes were opened in the Court and reports perused.
20. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelopes. The needful has been done.
21. For the purpose of considering the report of the Income Tax Department and hearing arguments on the related issues, the case is adjourned to 3-5-2011. While adjourning the case, we deem it proper to take cognizance of the fact that in compliance with the direction given by the Court, the Central Government has issued order for appointment of Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to deal with the prosecution of all the matters relating to 2G Spectrum case at all the stages.
(2015) 17 SCC 265(2)
Order dated 5-5-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 6, 10, 12 and 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
22. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Income Tax Department placed before the Court two sealed envelopes and stated that the same contain the reports prepared by the Additional Director (Investigation), Unit No. 1, New Delhi. The sealed covers were opened in the Court. We have cursorily perused the status report along with two Annexures A and B. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelopes. The needful has been done.
23. The learned Additional Solicitor General should instruct the officer concerned to hand over copies of the reports to Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. The needful has been done.
24. Liberty is given to the Income Tax Department to file appropriate application before the Special Court for permission to examine the particular persons who are in judicial custody. The Income Tax Department is directed to submit a comprehensive report. For considering the fresh report, the case will be taken up by this Bench on 16-5-2011 at 2.00 p.m.
25. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court may appoint a group of independent persons to assist it in monitoring the investigation being carried out by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department.
26. For further consideration of this issue, the case be listed on 13-5-2011. The additional affidavit filed in IA No. 6 is taken on record.
(2015) 17 SCC 266
Order dated 13-5-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 6, 10, 12 & 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 and IA No. 13 in IA No. 12, IAs Nos. 14-16, 18 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
27. Today the case has been listed for further consideration of the issue relating to appointment of an independent body of person to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department. Since the time left with the Court is not sufficient for effectively hearing the arguments on the aforesaid issue, the case is adjourned to 6-7-2011. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
28. In the context of the application made by the petitioners with reference to the complaint made by Shri Sharat Choudhary, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, which was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation by Shri R.P. Upadhyay, Additional Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI placed before the Court a note containing the details of the steps taken by CBI after receipt of the letter of Shri R.P. Upadhyay along with complaint of Shri Sharat Choudhary. We have perused the note. The Court Master is directed to return the note to Shri Venugopal. The needful has been done. CBI is directed to expedite the preliminary enquiry and inform the Court on 6-7-2011 about the progress made in the matter.
IA No. 18
29. Let this application be listed on 24-8-2011.
IAs Nos. 14, 15 and 16
30. Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant says that his client may be permitted to withdraw the application. Ordered accordingly.
IAs Nos. 12 and 13
31. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
(2015) 17 SCC 267(1)
Order dated 16-5-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 6, 10, 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
32. Mr Vivek Tankha, learned ASG appearing for the Income Tax Department produced two sealed envelopes which were opened in the Court. We have briefly perused the latest report of the Income Tax Department. Copy thereof shall be supplied to the learned ASG representing the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate. In its next report, CBI shall incorporate the steps taken by it in investigating what has been described in the income tax report keeping in view the contents of this report.
33. We hope that in terms of our earlier order dated 16-12-2010 (2011) 1 SCC 560 various Departments of the Government and agencies will share the information collected by them with other departments and agencies. List the case on 6-7-2011.
(2015) 17 SCC 267(2)
Order dated 6-7-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 6, 10, 19, 20 and 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
34. At the commencement of further hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate placed before the Court progress report dated 6-7-2011 prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The sealed covers handed over by the counsel assisting Shri Venugopal were opened in the Court. Shri K.K. Venugopal read out the salient portions of the report.
35. Since the Court's time is over, further consideration of the matter is adjourned to 11-7-2011. To be taken up at 2.45 p.m.
36. On the next date of hearing, the issue enumerated in the first part of the order dated 13-5-2011 will also be taken into consideration.
(2015) 17 SCC 267(3)
Order dated 1-9-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IA No. 18 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
37. The learned counsel assisting Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, handed over sealed envelopes containing the progress report submitted by CBI in Case No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 and Preliminary Enquiry No. PE DAI 2011 A 0001 as also the status report of the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement under FEMA. Shri Venugopal read out some portions of the report.
38. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the reports. The needful has been done.
39. The learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department also made available a sealed envelope containing the report prepared by the Income Tax Department and read out summary of the report contained in pp. 1 to 8.
40. The learned counsel for the parties and Dr Subramanian Swamy, request that the case may be taken up at an early date and may be heard on day-to-day basis.
41. List the case on 8-9-2011. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m. Insofar as the contempt petition is concerned, the same will be heard, as far as possible, on 14-9-2011.
(2015) 17 SCC 268(1)
Order dated 8-9-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IA No. 18 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with IAs Nos. 6, 9-10, 19-20, 22-23 and 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
42. After Dr Subramanian Swamy made his submissions in the context of IAs Nos. 18 and 24 of 2011, Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India pointed out that some of the documents like reply received by the applicant from the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and further correspondence on the subject has not been placed on record.
43. Dr Swamy requests and we allow seven days' time to file additional affidavit along with the documents.
44. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants commenced his submissions on the issue of appointment of a committee of independent persons to assist the Court.
45. For further hearing of arguments on this issue, the application of Dr Subramanian Swamy and the contempt petition, the case is adjourned to 20-9-2011. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m. If for any reason the arguments are not concluded on that day, the hearing may continue on 21-9-2011.
46. In view of the above, the contempt matter may not be listed on 14-9-2011.
(2015) 17 SCC 268(2)
Order dated 28-9-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 18, 24 in IA No. 18 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with IAs Nos. 6, 9-10, 19-20, 22-23 and 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
47. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel made submissions in the context of the prayer made for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring of the investigation of the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
48. After Shri Prashant Bhushan concluded his submissions, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation handed over two sealed envelopes, which were opened in the Court. The sealed envelopes contain the progress report dated 20-9-2011 on CBI Case No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 (2G Spectrum case) and Preliminary Enquiry No. PE DAI 2011 A 0001. After reading out some portions of the report, Shri K.K. Venugopal gave out that investigation into two matters highlighted in the report is still on. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the report. The needful has been done.
49. For the arguments of Shri K.K. Venugopal and Shri P.P. Rao on the prayer made by Shri Prashant Bhushan, the case is adjourned to 29-9-2011. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 269(1)
Order dated 10-10-2011
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 18, 24 in IA No. 18 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with IAs Nos. 6, 9-10, 19-20, 22-23 and 11 in IA No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
50. S/Shri K.K. Venugopal and P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Union of India completed/made their submissions. Thereafter, Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr Subramanian Swamy made their submissions. Order reserved.
51. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI also handed over sealed envelopes containing progress report dated 10-10-2011 on CBI Case No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 (2G Spectrum case) and Preliminary Enquiry No. PE DAI 2011 A 0001. The sealed covers be kept in safe custody.
(2015) 17 SCC 269(2)
Order dated 20-1-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 25-27, IAs Nos. D34042, 97220 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
52. This case was fixed for today for hearing arguments of IA No. 27 of 2011 and other pending applications. Although the matter was taken up at 2.00 p.m., due to continued sitting of another Bench we could assemble only at 2.30 p.m. At the commencement of hearing we enquired from the learned counsel for the parties and Dr Subramanian Swamy, whether it will be possible for them to conclude the hearing of IA No. 27 and other pending applications. While Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr Subramanian Swamy indicated that they will be concluding their arguments within 20 to 30 minutes, the learned Senior Counsel Mr P.P. Rao, appearing for the Union of India and Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate indicated that they would require some time to address the Court. Mr K.K. Venugopal, also gave out that he would like to place before the Court two reports of CBI and the Enforcement Directorate which are available with him in sealed covers.
53. Since the matter is not likely to conclude today and this combination of Bench is not likely to be available in near future, we adjourn IA No. 27 and other pending applications. The date of listing of these IAs to be notified later on. In the meanwhile, the petitioners may file further affidavit in the context of the reply filed on behalf of the Union of India. Permission to file IA No. D97220 of 2011 is granted to the Union of India.
(2015) 17 SCC 270(1)
Order dated 4-4-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA Nos. 27 and 34 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with SLP (Crl.) No. 1688 of 2012, SLP (C) No. 9310 of 2012
54. At the commencement of hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing CBI and the Enforcement Directorate and the learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department gave out that latest status reports will be submitted to the Court within three weeks. Thereafter, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel representing the appellants made submissions in the context of prayer made in IA No. 34 of 2012.
55. For further hearing, the cases are adjourned to 11-4-2012. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m. As far as possible, the Bench will continue hearing on 12-4-2012 and 13-4-2012 also in the post-lunch session.
(2015) 17 SCC 270(2)
Order dated 10-5-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
56. The Central Vigilance Commission has sent three sealed envelopes containing its observations on the reports submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department.
57. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate made available copies of the reports of the two organisations in sealed cover. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the Income Tax Department has also handed over in sealed covers copies of the report prepared by his Department. All the sealed covers were opened in the Court.
58. Since the report of the Central Vigilance Commission is only in one volume, the Court Master is directed to get prepared one more set by making photocopy and send them in a separate sealed cover for our perusal. All the envelopes are directed to be resealed. Put up on 17-7-2012. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 271(1)
Order dated 1-11-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 30-33 & 35-37 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
IAs Nos. 30-33 of 2012
59. Let these applications be listed after the decision of Writ Petition (C) No. 57 of 2012.
IA No. 35 of 2012
60. In this application filed by CBI, prayer has been made for grant of permission to investigate Shri Anil Sharma's change of stand.
61. We have heard Shri Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for some time and perused the averments contained in the application and the accompanying documents. In our view, there is no justification to entertain the prayer made in the application. CBI is free to take action in the matter in accordance with law. With the above observation, the application is disposed of.
IA No. 36 of 2012
62. Let this application be listed after disposal of Review Petition No. 522 of 2012 in SLP (Criminal) No. 1688 of 2012.
IA No. 37 of 2012
63. The application by Shri Yakesh Anand for grant of leave to intervene in the proceedings of Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 is dismissed.
(2015) 17 SCC 271(2)
Order dated 7-11-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
IA No. … of 2012 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 224 of 2011 in CA No. 10660 of 2010
64. As soon as the proceedings commenced for consideration of the pending issues arising out of the order passed by this Court on 16-12-2010 (2011) 1 SCC 560, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate handed over an application on behalf of the petitioner in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 224 of 2011 in which the following substantive prayers have been made:
“1. Direct the stay of all proceedings in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012 (PIL) before the High Court of Allahabad;
2. Direct the impleadment of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012 (PIL) before the High Court of Allahabad as a party-contemnor/respondent in the present proceedings;
3. Direct the stay of the enquiry initiated by the Economic Offences Wing of the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the directions contained in the Letter of 10-10-2012;
4. Direct the impleadment of Shri R.M. Srivastava, Principal Secretary Home, Government of U.P. as a party-contemnor/respondent in the present proceedings.”
65. Shri Venugopal referred to the documents filed with the application to show that constant efforts are being made to harass and browbeat an officer who is making investigation on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate in one of the facets of 2G case.
66. We have perused the averments contained in the application and scrutinised the annexed documents. On 6-5-2011, this Court had passed detailed order (2011) 14 SCC 365 in the contempt petition. The same reads as under: (Rajeshwar Singh case (2011) 14 SCC 365)
“1. In the main case i.e. Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 titled Centre for PIL v. Union of India, this Court had, on 16-3-2011 (2011) 15 SCC 169, issued the following directions:
‘5. While adjourning the case, we make it clear 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 2G Scam and the Court will take serious cognizance of any endeavour made by any person or group of persons in this regard.’
2. Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Assistant Director of Enforcement in the Directorate of Enforcement, who is investigating the case with reference to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) issued summons dated 2-2-2011 and 30-3-2011 to the Managing Director of M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and M/s India Commercial Corporation Ltd. under Sections 50(2) and (3) of the Act requiring him to appear along with the documents mentioned in the schedule appended to the summons.
3. On 5-5-2011, a communication was sent to Shri Rajeshwar Singh by one Shri Subodh Jain, who described himself as the reporter of Sahara Samay, asking him to answer 25 questions with an indication that Sahara News Network is planning to do a series of stories based on the documents allegedly in its possession.
4. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 submitted that all the questions contained in the communication of Shri Subodh Jain are absolutely personal to Shri Rajeshwar Singh and are intended to threaten him with adverse publicity apparently because he has issued summons to the Managing Director of the organisation. Shri Venugopal then produced two sealed envelopes and stated that the same contain the answers prepared by Shri Rajeshwar Singh to the 25 questions. The sealed envelopes were opened. We have perused the answers prepared by Shri Rajeshwar Singh.
5. We are prima facie satisfied that an attempt has been made to interfere with the investigation being conducted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh in what has been described as 2G Scam and related matters by trying to pressurise him not to proceed with the investigation qua certain individuals. Therefore, we take suo motu cognizance and direct issuance of notice.
6. Shri Gaurav Kejriwal, Advocate assisting Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. Shri C.D. Singh, Advocate accepts notice for Respondent 3. Reply-affidavits be filed within six weeks. Further affidavit of Shri Rajeshwar Singh may be filed within the next two weeks. List the case on 11-7-2011.
7. Shri Luthra says that during the pendency of this petition and the main case, his clients or any employee of M/s Sahara India TV Network, Noida, U.P.— a unit of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and Sahara India Mass Communication, Noida, U.P. will not do or publish any story or programme concerning Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India.
8. The envelopes produced by Shri K.K. Venugopal are taken on record. The court masters are directed to reseal the same. The needful has been done.”
The documents annexed with this application show that every possible effort has been made to interfere with the investigation being conducted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. The filing of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012 (PIL) in the Allahabad High Court and making of similar complaint to the Principal Secretary, Home of which cognizance has been taken by the State Government and the direction has been issued to the Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Investigation Organisation, Lucknow indicate that attempts are being made to prevent the applicant from conducting the investigation fearlessly. All this prima facie amounts to violation of the direction given by this Court on 6-5-2011 (2011) 14 SCC 365.
67. Issue notice to the respondents as also the State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, returnable on 29-11-2012. Dasti, in addition.
68. In the meanwhile, the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012 (PIL) titled Vinod Kumar v. Union of India pending before the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad shall remain stayed. We also direct the Government of Uttar Pradesh and all officers subordinate to it not to proceed with any enquiry or investigation into the complaint made by Shri Manvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate on 15-9-2012 or any similar complaint which may be made by any other person against the applicant. Let this IA be listed on 29-11-2012. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
69. The learned Additional Solicitor General produced sealed envelopes containing progress report dated 29-10-2012 in relation to the following cases:
1. CBI Case No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 (2G Spectrum case)
2. CBI Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0022 (Aircel Maxis case)
3. CBI Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0024 (Additional Spectrum case)
70. The Registry of the Court has also submitted a sealed envelope received from the Central Vigilance Commission. Both the envelopes were opened in the Court. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate took us through two parts of the report and gave reply to certain queries.
71. For further consideration of the report and other issues, the case will be taken up on 8-11-2012 at 2.00 p.m. The Court Masters are directed to put both the reports in separate sealed envelopes. The needful has been done.
(2015) 17 SCC 274
Order dated 8-11-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
72. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate took us through the remaining portions of progress report dated 29-10-2012. On our instructions, the Court Master made available to Shri Venugopal, Para 10 of the comments sent by the Central Vigilance Commission on progress report dated 29-10-2012. After going through the relevant paragraph, Shri Venugopal submitted that the Central Vigilance Commission could have given direction to CBI to enquire into the two aspects mentioned in that paragraph. He then submitted that CBI will take appropriate action in furtherance of the observations made by the Central Vigilance Commission.
73. As regards Para 15 of the report dated 29-10-2012, we deem it proper to observe that the Indian High Commission in Malaysia will extend full cooperation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
74. Put up on 19-11-2012 for consideration of the issue arising out of Paras 20 to 25 of the report dated 29-10-2012.
75. Shri Venugopal then took us through the status report submitted by the Directorate of Enforcement for the period from 21-4-2012 to 23-10-2012. The Court Masters are directed to put the report in a sealed cover. The needful has been done.
IA No. 36 of 2012 in CA No. 10660 of 2010
76. Dr Subramanian Swamy made submissions in support of IA No. 36 of 2012, which remained inconclusive.
77. For completion of arguments, list on 19-11-2012. To be taken up at 2 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 275
Order dated 19-11-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
78. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI placed before the Court letter dated 9-11-2012 sent by the Attorney General of Malaysia to the High Commissioner of India and letter of the same date sent by the High Commissioner of India to the Special Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.
79. We have gone through both the letters and deem it proper to make it clear that the statement attributed to the learned Senior Counsel for CBI appears to be based on incorrect report of the proceedings in the press and this has unnecessarily embarrassed the learned Senior Counsel and the High Commissioner of India in Malaysia.
80. The Central Vigilance Commission has forwarded two sealed envelopes containing its observations on the 4th status report submitted by the Income Tax Department and on the 9th status report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate in 2G Spectrum case.
81. The sealed envelopes in which the reports were received were opened in the Court. We have gone through the observations made by the Central Vigilance Commission. The Court Master is directed to make available copies of the observations of the Central Vigilance Commission to the learned Senior Counsel representing CBI and the learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate. The needful has been done.
82. The learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Senior Counsel for CBI shall seek instructions from the department concerned in the light of the observations made by the Central Vigilance Commission and make statement on the next date of hearing i.e. 26-11-2012.
83. Shri Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General handed over an envelope containing 4th status report by the Income Tax Department.
84. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI made submissions in the context of Paras 20 to 25 in relation to the investigation of RC DAI 2011 A 0024 (Additional Spectrum cases).
85. For further consideration, the matter is adjourned to 29-11-2012. To be taken up at 3.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 276(1)
Order dated 27-11-2012
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
86. In the context of the Court's order dated 19-11-2012, Shri Hiren P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General placed before the Court a statement and indicated that the Central Bureau of Investigation is making a coordinated effort to investigate all the aspects of 2G cases by associating the Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement. He gave out that meetings of the senior officers of the three organisations are being held on monthly basis.
87. Keeping in view the nature of the case, we deem it proper to direct that the senior officers of the three organisations i.e. CBI, the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate shall meet fortnightly and discuss all the aspects of the progress made in the investigation.
88. On an oral request made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we direct the Court Master to make available copy of the observations of the Central Vigilance Commission on the progress report dated 29-10-2012 submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The needful has been done. For further consideration, the matter is already fixed for 29-11-2012.
(2015) 17 SCC 276(2)
Order dated 13-2-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.)
IA No. … of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
89. On a mention made by Shri Hiren P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, we direct that IA No. ______ of 2013 (for directions) filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation be listed for consideration on 14-2-2013 before a Bench comprising G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ. To be taken up at 3.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 276(3)
Order dated 14-2-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA No. 58 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
90. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel says that his colleague has filed caveat on behalf of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 84 of 2013, pending in the Delhi High Court). He made a request for two weeks' adjournment and stated that he would himself seek adjournment in the matter pending before the Delhi High Court.
91. In view of the statement made by Shri Rohatgi, hearing of this application is adjourned to 12-3-2013. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 277(1)
Order dated 18-3-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA No. 36 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
92. During the course of hearing of IA No. 36, the Court Master placed before us two sealed envelopes along with letters dated 1-3-2013 and 11-3-2013 received from the Central Vigilance Commissioner which contain the comments of CVC on the 10th status report dated 9-2-2013 submitted by the Directorate of Enforcement and the status/progress report dated 22-2-2013 submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of three cases.
93. The Court Master is directed to get xerox copies of the letters along with reports received from the Central Vigilance Commissioner and hand over the same to the counsel assisting Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for CBI and ED in a sealed envelope and, thereafter, keep the reports received in sealed envelopes. The needful has been done. Put up on 17-4-2013. To be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 277(2)
Order dated 17-4-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 36, 38-58 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
IAs Nos. 38-58 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
94. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the non-applicants requests for an adjournment by saying that he is busy in a part-heard matter before another Bench.
95. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate and Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the non-applicants in some of the applications and other learned counsel say that they do not have any objection if the request made by Shri Jethmalani is accepted.
96. In view of the above, hearing of these applications is adjourned to 1-5-2013. The parties may, if so advised, file supplementary/additional/rejoinder-affidavits latest by 23-4-2013. No affidavits filed thereafter shall be entertained by the Registry.
IA No. 36 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
97. At the commencement of the hearing, Dr Subramanian Swamy, the applicant informed the Court that after filing of the application CBI has taken up investigation in relation to the issues raised in this application.
98. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing CBI handed over three sealed envelopes containing progress report dated 20-2-2013, note regarding investigation taken up by CBI regarding allegations about FIPB approval in AIRCEL MAXIS deal in Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0022 vis-à-vis issues raised by Dr Swamy in IA No. 36 as also the response of CBI to the Central Vigilance Commission's observations vide letter dated 11-3-2013. The sealed envelopes were opened in the Court. We have perused the same.
99. For further consideration of the issues raised in IA No. 36, the case is adjourned to the second week of July 2013. In the meanwhile, CBI shall make an endeavour to complete the investigation, as far as possible in RC DAI 2011 A 0022. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelopes. The needful has been done.
100. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for CBI made an oral request for modification of the direction contained in order dated 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 104 to facilitate submission of the progress report directly by CBI to the Court with copies to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Enforcement Directorate so that the latter may directly send comments to this Court and the reports along with the comments of the Central Vigilance Commission and the Enforcement Directorate can be considered by the Court at the same time.
101. The request made by Shri Venugopal is accepted and in modification of the order dated 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 104 it is directed that henceforth CBI shall directly file reports in this Court with copies to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Enforcement Directorate. The Central Vigilance Commission and the Enforcement Directorate shall send their comments/observations to the Court within two weeks of the receipt of the copies of the report from CBI.
102. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate handed over another sealed envelope containing the status report on the investigation in FEMA and PMLA in 2G Spectrum case for the period 24-10-2012 to 15-2-2013. The sealed envelopes were opened in the Court. We have perused the same. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelope. We hope and trust that the Enforcement Directorate will make serious endeavour to finalise the investigation as early as possible.
(2015) 17 SCC 278
Order dated 10-7-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA No. 36 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
103. At the commencement of hearing, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI handed over two sealed envelopes, which were opened in the Court, containing the progress report dated 10-7-2013 on CBI Cases Nos. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 and RC DAI 2011 A 0022. After making a reference to some of the paragraphs relating to investigation of RC DAI 2011 A 0022, Shri Venugopal submitted that the competent authority of CBI will make a reference to the Central Government in the context of Paras 24 and 25 of the progress report and as soon as the Central Government gives sanction, appropriate action will be taken by CBI.
104. Keeping in view the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel, we direct CBI to make a reference to the Central Government within seven days from today. The Central Government shall take appropriate decision in the matter within the next two weeks. Thereafter, CBI shall take final view of the matter and proceed with the case.
105. For further consideration of the matter with reference to RC DAI 2011 A 0022, the case be listed on 1-8-2013. To be taken up at 3.30 p.m.
106. Shri Venugopal referred to the progress made in RC DAI 2009 A 0045 and gave out that the investigation made in collaboration with the Governments of France and Switzerland is likely to be over within a period of three weeks.
107. For consideration of further progress report in RC DAI 2009 A 0045, the case is adjourned to 1-8-2013. The Court Masters are directed to reseal the envelopes handed over by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI. The needful has been done.
(2015) 17 SCC 279
Order dated 1-8-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA No. 36 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
108. Perused progress report dated 1-8-2013 in CBI Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0022.
109. In the context of the submission made by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel in the matter of issuance of fresh letter rogatory to the authorities of Malaysia, it is clarified that finalisation of the case should not be delayed on that account.
110. In the context of Para 27 of the report, it is made clear that CBI which is conducting investigation under the supervision of this Court shall not feel hesitant in investigating any person. As a matter of fact, this had been made clear in the final order passed by the Court wherein it was mentioned that CBI shall comprehensively investigate all issues.
111. Shri Venugopal submits that all the steps necessary for submission of final report will be taken within a period of two months from today.
112. Although, Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr Subramanian Swamy opposed the request made by Shri Venugopal, keeping in view the nature of the procedural requirements which CBI is required to fulfil, we accept the request of Shri Venugopal.
113. For further consideration of this issue, the case is adjourned to 3-10-2013. For further consideration of other issues, the matter is adjourned to 7-8-2013.
114. On a mention made by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, order dated 17-4-2013 is modified and the words “Enforcement Directorate” appearing in the penultimate paragraph of the order are deleted.
(2015) 17 SCC 280(1)
Order dated 7-8-2013
(Before G.S. Singhvi and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
IA No. 36 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
115. In this application, the applicant Dr Subramanian Swamy has made the following prayer:
“pass an order directing CBI to institute and proceed with investigation in the instant matter of Mr P. Chidambaram, presently Union Home Minister in Criminal Case RC No. 22(A) 2011-DLI, in CBI v. Dayanidhi Maran, presently pending before the Court of the Special Judge CBI (04)(2G Spectrum cases), New Delhi.”
116. During the course of arguments, Dr Subramanian Swamy made a grievance that even though he had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, copies of some of the documents were not made available to him on the ground that the papers are with the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”), which is making investigation in Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0022. He also invited our attention to the reply given to RTI application by the Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 10-5-2012.
117. Having considered the grievance made by Shri Swamy, we direct CBI to make available the relevant extracts of the Minutes of 78th meeting of the reconstituted FIPB held on 7-3-2006 to Dr Swamy.
118. Insofar as prayer made in the application is concerned, having gone through the record of the application and progress report dated 1-8-2013 submitted by CBI in Case No. RC DAI 2011 A 0022, we are satisfied that at this stage no order is required to be made on the prayer made by the applicant.
119. List the matter after completion of investigation in the aforesaid case.
(2015) 17 SCC 280(2)
Order dated 1-5-2014
(Before H.L. Dattu and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 with Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 224 and 500 of 2011
120. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the investigating agency submits that Shri Vivek Priyadarshi is the investigating officer for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Dr Rajeshwar Singh is the investigating officer for the Enforcement Directorate, who are conducting the investigation of Aircel Maxis case.
121. Shri Vivek Priyadarshi, who is Supervisory Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation is present along with Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel.
122. Dr Rajeshwar Singh, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, who is conducting the investigation of Aircel Maxis case is directed to continue with the investigation along with two other investigating officers till the completion of the trial.
123. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel has filed two sets each of status reports i.e. firstly, the status report on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation and secondly, the 11th, 12th and 13th status reports on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate in sealed covers. The same are taken on record.
124. The status report filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation is opened before us. The same is again kept in sealed covers.
125. We direct the Registry to keep these reports in sealed covers and not to open the same without the leave of the Court.
IA No. 72 in CA No. 10660 of 2010
126. Status report on IA No. 72 be filed on or before 12-8-2014. List the matter on 12-8-2014.
Contempt Petition No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
127. List in the month of July 2014.
(2015) 17 SCC 281(1)
Order dated 12-8-2014
(Before H.L. Dattu, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and S.A. Bobde, JJ.)
IA No. 72 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
128. The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed three sets of the report of the investigation conducted during the period from 1-5-2014 to 12-8-2014 in sealed covers.
129. The Directorate of Enforcement has also filed its status report of the investigation made during the period from 26-4-2014 to 6-8-2014 in sealed covers.
130. The investigation report by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the period dated 1-5-2014 to 12-8-2014 and the investigation report by the Directorate of Enforcement for the period dated 26-4-2014 to 6-8-2014 are perused and taken on record. The Registry is directed to keep the aforesaid reports in sealed covers, in the custody of the Secretary General of this Court forthwith.
131. List the matter on 2-9-2014 along with IAs Nos. 36 and 71.
(2015) 17 SCC 281(2)
Order dated 2-9-2014
(Before H.L. Dattu, S.A. Bobde and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 36, 71-72 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
132. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) has filed a sealed cover wherein he has enclosed a memo.
133. We have perused the sealed cover and carefully perused the contents of the memo.
134. In the said memo so filed, the learned Senior Counsel has suggested the name of Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel to be in charge of the prosecution proceedings for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate before the trial court.
135. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel knows the members of the Bar well and therefore, we do not question the correctness or otherwise of the suggestion so made by the learned Senior Counsel.
136. Therefore, we nominate Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel to be in-charge of the prosecution proceedings for CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in place of Shri U.U. Lalit (as he then was).
137. The Registry shall inform Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel about his nomination as a counsel for CBI, and the Enforcement Directorate in the proceedings before the trial court forthwith. List along with IAs Nos. 73 and 74 on 4-9-2014.
(2015) 17 SCC 282
Order dated 8-9-2014
(Before H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 36, 71-75 and Crl. MP No. 18219 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
138. Reply-affidavit, if any, to the additional affidavit filed by Ms Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel and General Secretary to the petitioner Society, be filed within a week's time from today.
139. The respondent(s) are permitted to file two additional affidavits, one by way of a preliminary objection and the other on merits. The reply-affidavit filed on merits may be put in a sealed cover and to be handed over to the Court Masters so that the same can be perused before the matter is taken up for further orders.
140. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society submits that last night i.e. on 7-9-2014 some unknown persons had come to his residence and had handed over the original entry register/guest register of the residential establishment of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”). The learned counsel also hands over a list of the names of 23 personnel and the names of four CBI constables working in the residential establishment of the Director, CBI.
141. Both the documents are directed to be kept in a sealed cover.
142. We further direct the Secretary General of this Court to keep the aforesaid documents in a safe custody.
In re: Dr Rajeshwar Singh, Deputy Director
143. A note on behalf of Dr Rajeshwar Singh, who is on deputation as Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement is placed before us by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr Rajeshwar Singh.
144. In the note submitted by the learned Senior Counsel he brings out the relevant facts which has prompted the learned Senior Counsel to file the aforesaid note with a request to direct the respondent(s) Union of India and others to comply with the orders and directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short “the Tribunal”) vide its order dated 24-12-2013 OA No. 3653 of 2013.
145. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel and Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General.
146. Dr Rajeshwar Singh is working as a Deputy Director in the Enforcement Directorate. Since his case was not considered by the respondent(s) Union of India and others to absorb him as a Deputy Director in the Enforcement Directorate, he had filed an application (OA No. 3653 of 2013) before the Tribunal, inter alia, requesting the Tribunal to issue an appropriate direction to the respondent(s) to absorb his services as Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate. The application so filed by Dr Rajeshwar Singh was opposed by the respondent(s) before the Tribunal.
147. The Tribunal, after considering the case pleaded by both the parties, has allowed the application vide its order dated 24-12-2013 OA No. 3653 of 2013. The operative portion of the directions issued by the Tribunal reads as under:
“Following the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna (2005) 4 SCC 154, we allow the present original application. Respondents 1 and 3 Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions are directed to abide by the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission and also issue the order of absorption of the applicant as Deputy Director of Enforcement, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the order of absorption is issued, the interim order dated 11-10-2013 would remain in operation.”
148. The respondent(s), being aggrieved by the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal had approached the Delhi High Court by filing WP (C) No. 449 of 2014. In the writ petition, an interim relief was sought, inter alia, requesting the High Court to stay the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal.
149. The High Court, by its order dated 6-2-2014 WP (C) No. 449 of 2014, while issuing notice, had observed that no grounds are made out by the respondent(s) Union of India (petitioners therein) for grant of the interim relief. In the words of the Court:
“No ground for stay is made out. However, the appointment of Respondent 1 shall be subject to the outcome of this petition.”
150. Though an interim order was declined by the writ court, the respondent(s) Union of India (petitioners therein) in the writ petition, did not carry the matter further. That means, the interim order passed by the High Court has become final.
151. As we have already noticed that a note has been filed by the learned Senior Counsel Shri K.K. Venugopal for Dr Rajeshwar Singh. In the said note, it is stated that, he is seeking a direction by this Court to direct the respondent(s) to comply with the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal.
152. It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed that there is a direction issued by the Tribunal while disposing of the original application filed by Dr Rajeshwar Singh. The respondent(s) ought to have complied with the said direction within the time-frame that was granted by the Tribunal. However, instead of doing so, they carried the matter by filing a writ petition before the writ court. The writ court has declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the respondent(s). That means that the respondent(s) has to comply with the order and directions issued by the Tribunal or to carry the matter by filing an appropriate petition before the superior forums. That has not been done by the respondent(s) Central Government. In a situation like this, in our opinion, the request of the learned Senior Counsel for Dr Rajeshwar Singh requires to be granted. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
153. The respondent(s) Union of India shall comply with the order and directions issued by the Tribunal within three days' time from today.
154. Call the matter on 15-9-2014.
(2015) 17 SCC 284(1)
Order dated 1-4-2015
(Before H.L. Dattu, C.J. and Arun Mishra, J.)
IA No. 77 of 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
155. Dr Subramanian Swamy is requested to serve a set of IA No. 77 of 2015 on Shri Anand Grover and Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General within a week's time from today. Reply to the application, if any, be filed within two weeks' time.
156. We request Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel to submit status report on the next day of hearing. Call on 20-4-2015.
(2015) 17 SCC 284(2)
Order dated 20-4-2015
(Before H.L. Dattu, C.J. and Arun Mishra, J.)
IA No. 77 of 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
IA No. 77 of 2015
157. Dr Subramanian Swamy, Applicant-in-person, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw Interlocutory Application No. 77 of 2015 with liberty to that person, in whose cause the applicant is espousing, to come before us, if he so desires. Permission sought for is granted. IA No. 77 of 2015 is disposed of as withdrawn.
158. The status report dated 20-4-2015 filed by CBI is taken on record. The Registry is directed to keep the sealed cover containing the status report in safe custody.
159. The status report dated 17-4-2015 filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is taken on record. The Registry is directed to keep the sealed cover containing the status report in safe custody. List the matter on 30-4-2015 at 3.30 p.m.
(2015) 17 SCC 285(1)
Order dated 30-4-2015
(Before H.L. Dattu, C.J. and S.A. Bobde and Arun Mishra, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
160. Observations of CVC on the progress report dated 20-4-2015, submitted by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for CBI in a sealed cover is taken on record and the same be kept in a sealed cover in safe custody.
161. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI/ED makes an oral request to permit Mr Vivek Priyadarshi, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi to take part in the UN SAAT (United Nations Selection Assistance and Assessment Team) 2015-2017 for Male Police Officers.
162. An application has been filed by the aforesaid officer to permit him to appear in the aforesaid examination conducted by the UN SAAT (United Nations Selection Assistance and Assessment Team) 2015-2017 for Male Police Officers. His application is not processed by CBI only on the ground that in view of the undertaking given by the then learned ASG before this Court that the officers investigating the 2G cases will not be transferred.
163. In our view, when an officer has filed his application to permit him to improve his career prospects, this Court should not be coming in his way. Therefore, we now direct CBI to process the application filed by Shri Vivek Priyadarshi forthwith and forward it to the officer concerned in the Ministry of Home Affairs. After receipt of the said application, we direct the officer concerned in the Ministry of Home Affairs to condone the delay in sending his application and consider the same in accordance with the terms suggested in its Notification dated 10-3-2015 and permit him to appear in the aforesaid examination. List the matter on 23-7-2015 before an appropriate Bench.
(2015) 17 SCC 285(2)
Order dated 6-8-2015
(Before T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
164. List the matter before an appropriate Bench in the month of September 2015 subject to convenience of the learned counsel for the other parties.
165. Mr Subramanian Swamy, Intervenor-in-person undertakes to inform the other side.
(2015) 17 SCC 286
Order dated 9-9-2015
(Before H.L. Dattu, C.J. and Arun Mishra, J.)
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
166. We request Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned respected Senior Counsel to continue assisting us in these matters by appearing for CBI as well as for the Enforcement Directorate. We direct CBI and the Enforcement Directorate to keep assisting Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Amicus Curiae in these matters.
167. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Amicus Curiae has filed two sealed covers today containing the status reports. We direct the Registry to keep the sealed covers in safe custody.
168. By our earlier order, we had directed CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Departments to hold coordination meetings fortnightly. In our opinion, since the investigation is almost complete, there is no reason for these agencies to meet once fortnightly. Therefore, we modify our earlier order and direct the aforesaid agencies to meet only once in a month. Call the matter on 23-9-2015 for further orders.