1

       REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION                WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 169 OF 2017

Campaign for Judicial  Accountability and Reforms  .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others       .... Respondent(s)

                       O R D E R  

1) By  means  of  the  present  writ  petition  (public  interest

litigation)  (PIL),  the  petitioner,  Campaign  for  Judicial

Accountability  and  Reforms,  through  its  Secretary,  has

approached this  Court  seeking  a  writ  of  mandamus or  any

other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special

Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of

India to investigate  in the matter  of  alleged conspiracy and

payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter

pending  before  this  Court  and  take  consequential  actions

thereafter  along  with  a  direction  to  the  Central  Bureau  of

2

Investigation  (CBI)  to  hand  over  all  the  materials/evidence

collected so far in the FIR bearing No. RC10(A)/2017-AC.III,

New Delhi to the SIT to be constituted by this Court.

2) We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel

for  the petitioner and Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned Attorney

General appearing for the Union of India.

3) Shri  Prashant  Bhushan,  referring  to  the  FIR  dated

19.09.2017 filed by the CBI, New Delhi submitted that in the

FIR  names  of  various  persons  have  been  mentioned  as

suspected accused along with other unknown public servants

and private persons.  According to him, the aforesaid FIR has

been lodged regarding some criminal conspiracy for getting a

matter pending before this Court settled.  He thus submitted

that one does not know how many public and private persons

are involved in it and the matter relates to huge gratification

for inducing public servants in a matter pending before this

Court.  He, however, emphasized that the purpose of filing this

petition is not to name any Judge of this Court but to protect

the independence of the judiciary and in order to arrive at an

3

impartial investigation, this Court may appoint a SIT headed

by a retired Chief Justice of India.   

4) Learned Attorney General for India, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioner is abusing the process of court

and this  very issue,  in  an identical  writ  petition,  being No.

W.P. (Crl.) No. 176 of 2017 titled Kamini Jaiswal vs.  Union

of  India  and  Another has  been  considered  and  the  writ

petition  has  been  dismissed  by  this  Court  on  14.11.2017.

Therefore,  the  present  writ  petition  is  also  liable  to  be

dismissed on this ground alone.

5) We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the

various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties and we

find  that  in  Kamini  Jaiswal  (supra)¸  this  Court  had

considered the similar plea raised by Shri Prashant Bhushan

and  had  dealt  in  detail  vide  judgment  and  order  dated

14.11.2017.  For ready reference, the reliefs, the facts as also

the  findings  recorded  by  this  Court  in  Kamini  Jaiswal

(supra)  in paragraph Nos. 4, 7, 8, 22 and 29 are reproduced

below:-

4

“4.  In  the  writ  petitions,  a  prayer  has  been  made  to constitute  a  Special  Investigation  Team  (SIT),  headed  by retired  Chief  Justice  of  India,  to  investigate  the  offences arising  out  of  FIR  being  RC.10(A)/2017-AC.  III  dated 19.9.2017  recorded  at  New  Delhi  by  the  CBI  and  those connected  therewith  and  take  consequential  action thereafter in accordance with law. A prayer was also made to direct the CBI, to produce before this Court for its perusal and, preserve and protect, all evidences/materials collected so far and hand over all the materials/evidences collected so far in the FIR to the SIT to be constituted by this Court.

7. On 19.9.2017, an FIR was registered against the following  persons in connection with the case :

(i) Shri I.M. Quddusi, retired Judge of the High Court  of Odisha. (ii) Smt. Bhawana Pandey r/o GK. New Delhi (private  person) (iii) Shri B.P. Yadav (private person) (iv) Shri Palash Yadav (private person) (v) Shri Sudhir Giri (Private person) (vi) Shri Biswanath Agrawala, r/o HIG – 136, Phase 1,  Kanan Vihar, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha (Private person) (vii) Other unknown public servants and private  persons.

8. It  was  alleged  in  the  FIR,  that  Mr.  B.P.  Yadav  had requested Justice I.M. Quddusi and Smt. Bhawana Pandey to get  the  matter  settled in  the  apex Court  through their contacts. They engaged Mr. Biswanath Agarwala, a private person and a resident of Bhubaneswar, Orissa for getting the matter settled in the apex Court. Mr. Biswanath Agrawala claimed that he would get the matter favourably settled. He demanded huge gratification for inducing the public servants by corrupt and illegal means. Further, that Mr. B.P. Yadav, Mr.  Palash  Yadav,  Justice  I.M.  Quddusi,  Mrs.  Bhawana Pandey  and  Mr.  Sudhir  Giri  were  all  likely  to  meet  Mr. Biswanath  Agrawala  for  delivering  the  agreed  illegal gratification  at  Delhi  shortly.  The  FIR  was  recorded  on 19.9.2017 whereas this Court had already disposed of the matter on 18.9.2017. It is averred in the petition that the case  discloses  commission  of  offence  punishable  under section  8  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  and section 120B of the IPC against the named persons as well

5

as against the unknown public servants and private persons. It  is  further  averred in the  petition that  since  the  matter involves  persons  placed  at  the  highest  echelons  of  power including  justice  delivery  system and in subsequent  raids made by the CBI  it  has recovered close to Rs.2 crores in cash, the agency has seized Rs.1 crore which the Hawala operator had handed over to an aide of the retired Judge I.M. Quddusi.

22. The submissions so raised, and averments so made, in this petition, and the entire scenario created by filing of two successive petitions, are really disturbing a lot.  The entire judicial  system  has  been  unnecessarily  brought  into disrepute  for  no  good  cause  whatsoever.  It  passes comprehension  how it  was,  that  the  petitioner  presumed, that there is an FIR lodged against any public functionary. There  is  an averment  made in the writ  petition  that  it  is against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been recorded. We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge of this Court in the FIR. There is no question of registering any FIR against any sitting Judge of the High Court or of this Court as it is not permissible as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of  K. Veeraswami v. Union of  India (1991) 3 SCC 655 wherein  this  Court  observed  that  in  order  to  ensure  the independence  of  the  judiciary  the  apprehension  that  the Executive  being  largest  litigant,  it  is  likely  to  misuse  the power  to  prosecute  the  Judges.  Any  complaint  against  a Judge and investigation by the CBI if  given publicity,  will have  a  far  reaching  effect  on  the  Judge  and  the  litigant public.  The  need,  therefore,  is  of  judicious  use  of  action taken under the Act. There cannot be registration of any FIR against  a  High  Court  Judge  or  Chief  Justice  of  the  High Court or the Supreme Court Judge without the consultation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and, in case there is an allegation against Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the decision has to be taken by the Hon’ble President, in accordance with the  procedure  prescribed  in  the  said  decision.  Thus,  the instant  petitions,  as  filed,  are  a  misconceived  venture inasmuch,  as  the  petition  wrongly  presupposes  that investigation  involves  higher  judiciary,  i.e.  this  Court’s functionaries are under the scanner in the aforesaid case; that independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red herring. There cannot be any  FIR  even  against  the  Civil  Judge/Munsif  without

6

permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and rightly,  FIR  has  not  been  registered  against  any  sitting Judge.  Otherwise,  on  unfounded  allegations,  any  honest Judge to the core, can be defamed, and reputation can be jeopardized. No Judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘who purports to sell whom’.  The  alleged  actions  of  a  retired  Judge  of  a  High Court,  allegedly  assuring  and  promising,  a  ‘favourable’ decision in the aforesaid circumstances of  the case which was  then  pending  before  this  Court,  in  the  aforesaid circumstances and has assured favourable orders, begs the question, and we wonder, as to what favourable orders have been passed. As is apparent from the aforesaid narration of facts, there was no favourable order granted by this Court in favour  of  the  medical  college  for  the  current  academic session  2017-18,  rather  its  inspection  for  considering confirmation of letter of permission for the next year 2018-19 had been ordered. The decision will be in the hands of the MCI. After decision has been rendered on 18.9.2017 by this Court, an FIR has been lodged and it appears that money was yet to be exchanged. The FIR dated 19.9.2017 reflects that Mr. B.P. Yadav, Justice Quddusi, Ms. Bhawana Pandey, and  Mr.  Sudhir  Giri  were  likely  to  meet  Mr.  Biswanath Agarwala  for  getting  favourable  order  at  Delhi  shortly; whereas  this  Court  has  already  decided  the  mater  on 18.9.2017. Thus it is a far fetched and too tenuous to even assume or allege that the matter was pending in this Court for which any bribe was to be delivered to anyone.

29. ….. Ultimately after arguing at length, at the end, it was submitted by the petitioner and her counsel that they were not aiming at any individual. If that was not so, unfounded allegations ought not to have been made against the system and  that  too  against  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  of  this country.  In  case  majesty  of  our  judicial  system  has  to survive,  such  kind  of  petitions  should  not  have  been preferred that too against the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions of this Court in Dr. D C Saxena (supra) and K. Veeraswami (supra).”

6) The  FIR  which  came  for  consideration  in  the  case  of

Kamini  Jaiswal  (supra) and  in  this  case,  is  the  same.

7

Further, we find that in  Kamini Jaiswal (supra),  this Court

had  noted  the  circumstances  under  which  similar  petition,

that  is,  W.P.  (Crl.)  No.  176  of  2017  was  filed  by  Advocate

Kamini Jaiswal on 09.11.2017, i.e., immediately on the next

day of the mentioning of the present petition on 08.11.2017.

The facts, the relief, the submissions being same which was in

Kamini Jaiswal (supra),  we do not find any good ground to

entertain this petition as the matter had already been decided

by  this  Court  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  14.11.2017

relevant  portions  of  which  have  already  been  reproduced

above.   

7) It  is  also  relevant  to  mention  here  that  this  Court  in

paragraph  22  in  Kamini  Jaiswal  (supra) has  raised  its

concern  about  filing  of  the  successive  writ  petitions  in  the

following words:

“22. The submissions so raised, and averments so made, in this petition, and the entire scenario created by filing of two successive petitions, are really disturbing a lot.  The entire judicial  system  has  been  unnecessarily  brought  into disrepute  for  no  good  cause  whatsoever.   It  passes comprehension  how it  was,  that  the  petitioner  presumed, that there is an FIR lodged against any public functionary. There  is  an averment  made in the writ  petition  that  it  is against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been

8

recorded.  We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge of this Court in the FIR….”

8) The  petition  is  not  only  wholly  frivolous,  but

contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest

judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis

and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of

persons  professing  to  espouse  the  cause  of  accountability.

What  an irony of  fate,  the  petitioner  has  itself  forgotten its

accountability  and  filing  of  such  petition  may  entail  in

ultimate  debarment  of  such petitioners  from filing  so-called

public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury

to cause of public than subserving it.   

9) In  view  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  we  are  of  the

considered opinion and we  are  constrained  to  say  that  the

present  petition,  in  particular,  the  manner  in  which  it  has

been pursued without any remorse by questioning the decision

rendered on the subject  matter  by this Court including the

plea taken in the earlier petition as noted in paragraph 29 of

the  said  decision,  is  gross  abuse  of  the  process  of  court.

9

Therefore, it has to be dismissed with exemplary costs in order

to ensure that such attempt is not repeated in future.

1 0

10) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.

25 (twenty five) lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner before

the Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter the said

amount shall be transferred to Supreme Court Bar Association

Advocates’ Welfare Fund.  

...…………………………………J.             (R.K. AGRAWAL)

…………….………………………J.            (ARUN MISHRA)

…………….………………………J.            (A.M. KHANWILKAR)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 1, 2017.