Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7159 OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22604 of 2012)

WITH

I.A. NO. 8 IN  CIVIL APPEAL NO.7159 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22604 of 2012)

Advocates Association, Bangalore       .... Appellant  (s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors                                      ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  filed  against  the  final  judgment  and  

order  dated  16.05.2012  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 7623 of 2012  

1

Page 2

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court constituted a  

Special  Investigation  Team  (SIT)  to  investigate  into  the  

broadcasting  of  certain  news  items  by  certain  television  

channels  on  02.03.2012  regarding  scuffle  between  

advocates, police and media persons in the premises of the  

City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.  

3) Brief Facts:

(a) On  02.03.2012,  Shri  Janardhana  Reddy,  former  

Minister in the Government of Karnataka was sought to be  

produced by the CBI, Bangalore Branch, in the Court of 46th  

Additional  City  Civil  and Special  Judge,  CBI  at  Bangalore  

City  Civil  Court  Complex  in  a  case  which  invited  

considerable public attention.  The electronic as well as the  

print media were in the precincts of the Court so as to film  

and make video coverage and publish the news regarding  

the production of the former Minister.   

(b)   A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused  

a great deal of inconvenience, as a result of which, scuffle  

ensued between advocates, police and media persons and  

simultaneously violence broke out and the police resorted  

2

Page 3

to  lathi  charge  in  which  several  persons  got  injured.   A  

number of vehicles were also damaged and destroyed due  

to stone pelting and arson.  Over 191 cases were registered  

in  regard  to  the  above  said  incident  against  the  police,  

advocates,  media  persons,  public  etc.  under  various  

categories in various police stations of the City.

(c) On 06.03.2012, Advocates Association, Bangalore-the  

appellant herein, registered under the Karnataka Societies  

Registration Act,  1959, submitted a representation to the  

Chief Minister of Karnataka to take suitable action against  

the  police  atrocities  committed  on  the  advocates  on  

02.03.2012.   Subsequently,  on  07.03.2012,  the  General  

Secretary  of  the  appellant-Association  filed  a  detailed  

complaint  in  the  jurisdictional  police  station  wherein  the  

names of the police officers who were involved in the said  

incident were given.   

(d) On  the  very  same  day,  i.e.,  on  07.03.2012,  the  

Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order (GO)  

and appointed the Director General of Police, CID, Special  

Units & Economic Offences as the Inquiry Officer to conduct  

3

Page 4

an  in-house  inquiry  into  the  matter.  On  10.03.2012,  the  

Registrar,  City Civil  Court,  Bangalore,  lodged a complaint  

with the Ulsoorgate Police Station for  causing damage to  

the property of City Civil Court, Bangalore which came to be  

registered as FIR No.  206/2012 under Sections 143,  147,  

323,  324,  427,  435 read  with  Section  149 of  the  Indian  

Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1) of the  

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against  

unknown persons.  On 19.03.2012, the Director General of  

Police  submitted  his  report  stating  that  the  officers  on  

bandobust  failed  to  exercise  adequate  and  proper  

supervisory control on the policemen while controlling the  

situation, which resulted in excesses committed by some of  

the  policemen,  and  the  police  personnel  responsible  for  

excesses could not be easily identified.   

(e) Several writ petitions came to be filed before the High  

Court seeking various reliefs inter alia including direction to  

the State Government to entrust the investigation to the  

CBI.   On  26.03.2012,  the  President  of  the  appellant-

Association filed an affidavit in the writ petitions, viz., 7623  

4

Page 5

and 8328 of  2012 appraising the court  about the dismal  

progress in the investigation carried out by the police.  In  

view of the same, on 29.03.2012 and 02.04.2012, Assistant  

Commissioner  of  Police  filed  an  affidavit  and  counter  

affidavit respectively stating the status of the investigation.  

It  was  further  stated  that  the  State  Government  has  

accepted the report of the Director General of Police and he  

has  been  directed  to  conduct  further  inquiry.   Several  

documents, records and other details were produced before  

the High Court during the course of the proceedings.  

(f) The  High  Court,  by  order  dated  16.05.2012,  

constituted a Special  Investigation Team (SIT)  headed by  

Dr. R.K. Raghavan, a retired Director of the CBI as Chairman  

and  Mr.  R.K.  Dutta,  Director  General  of  Police,  CID,  

Bangalore as Convenor along with other police officials to  

investigate  into  the  incident  with  reference  to  the  

complaints  lodged  by  the  police,  advocates  as  well  as  

media against each other and to conclude the same within  

3 months from the date of the Government Notification.  In  

pursuance  of  the  same,  the  State  Government  issued  a  

5

Page 6

series of Notifications constituting and reconstituting SIT for  

reasons of non-availability of officers to be its members.   

(g) Being aggrieved of  the impugned order,  this  appeal  

has been filed by way of special leave before this Court.  On  

19.10.2012, this Court rejected the prayer of alteration of  

the investigating agency and directed the SIT to commence  

the  investigation  forthwith  and  submit  a  report  within  3  

months from the date of the order.  Pursuant to the same,  

the  State  Government  issued  notifications  dated  

03.11.2012, 13.11.2012 and 17.11.2012 for appointing and  

substituting various officers in the SIT.  On 12.12.2012, the  

State Government filed an application seeking extension of  

6 months’ time to investigate the case.  In January, 2013,  

the  State  Government  filed  a  similar  application  for  an  

extension of 6 months to submit a report.   

(h) Being aggrieved of the fact that in spite of a lapse of  

over 1 year from the date of incident, the investigation has  

not  even  commenced  even  after  the  orders  of  the  High  

6

Page 7

Court dated 16.05.2012 and this Court dated 19.10.2012,  

the appellant-Association filed a contempt petition.   

(i) Interlocutory Application being No. 8 also came to be  

filed in the above said special leave petition to direct the  

SIT to hand over the investigation to the CBI in view of this  

Court’s order dated 19.10.2012.   

4) Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for  

the  appellant-Association,  Mr.  K.V.  Viswanathan,  learned  

senior  counsel  for  the  respondent-State  and  Mr.  Amarjit  

Singh  Chandhiok,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  for  

the Union of India.

Contentions:

5) Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant-Association submitted that in spite of the fact that  

the  incident  occurred  on  02.03.2012  and  in  view  of  the  

subsequent  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  16.05.2012  

constituting  a  Special  Investigation  Team  (SIT)  and  

subsequent  direction  of  this  Court  dated  19.10.2012  

7

Page 8

modifying the composition of SIT, the fact remains that till  

this  moment,  nothing  has  turned  down,  in  fact,  the  

investigation is yet to commence.  Learned senior counsel  

for the appellant-Association further contended that in view  

of  the  fact  that  persons  concerned  in  the  issue  are  

members of the bar, police personnel, persons from both  

print and electronic media, it is a fit case which the Central  

Bureau of  Investigation (CBI)  should investigate fixing an  

outer limit for the same.  

6) On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  K.V.  Viswanathan,  learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-State,  by  

drawing our attention to various orders of the High Court  

and this  Court,  submitted that  owing to the clarifications  

sought for in respect of the composition of SIT, the matter  

got delayed in commencing the investigation and according  

to him, there is no need to entrust the investigation to an  

agency like CBI.  

7) Mr.  A.S.  Chandhiok,  learned  ASG  appearing  for  the  

Union of India submitted that though the CBI is to abide by  

the orders of this Court but due to various activities being  

8

Page 9

handled by the CBI, let the SIT be allowed to continue and  

complete the investigation.  

Discussion:

8) It is seen that on account of serious and unfortunate  

incident involving advocates, police personnel, journalists,  

media persons in the City Civil Court Complex at Bangalore  

on  02.03.2012,  large  number  of  persons  were  assaulted  

and injured.  It is alleged by the appellant-Association that  

the same was caused due to the action of the police and  

the media.   The appellant-Association also raised serious  

allegations  against  the  print  and  electronic  media  in  

broadcasting false and provocative news thereby maligning  

and demeaning the advocate community.  

9) Initially, the appellant–Association filed a Writ Petition  

No.  7623  of  2012  praying  for  a  direction  to  the  State  

Government to entrust the investigation to the CBI.  Several  

other  writ  petitions  were  also  filed.   By  impugned  order  

dated  16.05.2012,  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  writ  

petition by constituting a SIT headed by Shri R.K. Raghavan,  

a retired Director of the CBI and other officers.  It is further  

9

Page 10

seen that on 19.10.2012, this Court reconstituted the SIT to  

investigate into the incident and also directed to submit a  

report within three months from the date of the order.   

10) It is the grievance of the appellant-Association that in  

spite  of  the  directions  of  this  Court  and  a  series  of  

notifications issued by the State Government constituting  

and re-constituting SIT for one reason or the other, the fact  

remains that even after a lapse of one year and five months  

from the date of the incident, the investigation has not yet  

been  commenced.   It  is  unfortunate  that  even after  the  

order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 nothing has happened.  

It  is  relevant  to  mention that  the constitution  of  the  so-

called  SIT  has  not  completed  till  date.   Though  Mr.  K.V.  

Viswanathan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  respondent-

State raised an objection as to the averments in para 9 in  

I.A. No. 8 filed by the appellant-Association, it is clear that  

in spite of the modified order of this Court, the investigation  

is yet to commence due to non-formation of SIT.   

11) As regards entrusting the investigation to the CBI, a  

Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal  

10

Page 11

and  Others vs.  Committee  for  Protection  of  

Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, (2010) 3  

SCC 571 has laid down certain principles.  Though the CBI  

has issued various principles/suggestions for endorsing the  

matter  to  CBI  in  para  68,  it  is  worthwhile  to  refer  the  

conclusion in paras 69 & 70.

“69. In  the  final  analysis,  our  answer  to  the  question  referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of  its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI  to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been  committed  within  the  territory  of  a  State  without  the  consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal  structure  of  the  Constitution  nor  violate  the  doctrine  of  separation of  power and shall  be valid in law. Being the  protectors of civil  liberties of the citizens, this Court and  the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction  but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights,  guaranteed by Part III  in general and under Article 21 of  the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.

70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to  emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles  32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order,  the  Courts  must  bear  in  mind  certain  self-imposed  limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers.  The very  plenitude of  the power  under  the  said  articles  requires  great  caution  in  its  exercise.  Insofar  as  the  question  of  issuing  a  direction  to  CBI  to  conduct  investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible  guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such  power should be exercised but time and again it has been  reiterated  that  such  an  order  is  not  to  be  passed  as  a  matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled  some  allegations  against  the  local  police.  This  extraordinary  power  must  be  exercised  sparingly,  cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes  necessary  to  provide  credibility  and  instil  confidence  in  

11

Page 12

investigations or where the incident may have national and  international ramifications or where such an order may be  necessary  for  doing  complete  justice  and  enforcing  the  fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a  large number of cases and with limited resources, may find  it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in  the  process  lose  its  credibility  and  purpose  with  unsatisfactory investigations.”

Keeping the above principles in mind, considering the series  

of unfortunate incidents which occurred within the City Civil  

Court  Complex,  Bangalore  on  02.03.2012  involving  

members of the bar, police personnel, journalists and media  

persons and in spite of the specific direction by the High  

Court as early as on 16.05.2012, subsequent order of this  

Court  dated  19.10.2012,  and  also  of  the  fact  that  the  

composition of SIT itself has not been finalized, we feel that  

the present case falls within the principles enunciated by  

the Constitution Bench and we are satisfied that CBI inquiry  

is necessitated in the matter in issue.     

12) In the light of what is stated above, while setting aside  

the  impugned order  of  the  High Court  dated 16.05.2012  

and  in  modification  of  earlier  order  of  this  Court  dated  

19.10.2012,  we  entrust  the  entire  investigation  of  the  

12

Page 13

incident to the CBI.  Accordingly, we direct the CBI to carry  

out  the  investigation  and  submit  a  report  before  the  

appropriate Court having jurisdiction at Bangalore within a  

period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this  

judgment.  We further direct the State/SIT to immediately  

hand  over  all  the  records  pertaining  to  the  said  

investigation to the CBI.      

13) The appeal is allowed on the above terms.  In view of  

the above direction, no separate order is required in I.A. No.  

8 of 2013, accordingly, the same is also disposed of.  

 ..…………….…………………………CJI.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…........…………………………………J.            (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)             

.…........………………………….………J.           (RANJAN GOGOI)                                

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 27, 2013.   

13