ADVOCATES ASSN.BANGALORE Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-007159-007159 / 2013
Diary number: 22878 / 2012
Advocates: Vs
ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA
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