Page 1

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 13/2014 and Crl. M.P. No.387/2015 IN       

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.463/2012

Common Cause & Ors.            ….Petitioners  

Versus

Union of India and Ors.            …Respondents  

O R D E R

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The prayer in IA No.13/2014 filed by Common Cause

& others is two-fold:

(1) Direct Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, not to interfere in  the  coal  block  allocation  case  investigations  and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and to recuse himself from these cases.

(2) Direct  an  SIT  appointed  by  the  Hon’ble  Court  to investigate the abuse of  authority committed by the CBI Director  in  order  to  scuttle  inquires,  investigations  and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI  in  coal  block allocation cases and other important cases.

2. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, since Mr.

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 1 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 2

Ranjit Sinha, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

(for  short  the  CBI)  has  admittedly  superannuated  on  or

about   2nd December, 2014 the question of his recusal from

investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI

in respect  of  cases arising out of  what is  now commonly

known  as  the  Coal  Block  Allocations  case  has  become

infructuous.   We  are,  therefore,  concerned  only  with  the

second prayer in the application.

3. The prayer in Crl. MP No.387/2015 filed by Mr. Ranjit

Sinha is as follows:

A.  Direct  the concerned Police  Station to  register  an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the Petitioner Association (i.e.  Common  Cause)  and  Mr.  Kamal  Kant  Jaswal  for making  deliberate  and  intentional  false  statements  on oath and before this Hon’ble Court in these proceedings,

B.  Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

4. We propose to consider both these applications since

we have heard submissions on them.  

5. It is not necessary to go into the detailed background

of the case since all the facts are on record in the judgment

delivered  by  this  Court  in  Manohar  Lal  Sharma  v.

Principal Secretary and Ors.1  Nevertheless, some facts

1 (2014) 2 SCC 532

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 2 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 3

are  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  a  decision  on  these

applications.

6. During the course of hearing of the writ petition on

24th January, 2013 and in response to a query made by this

Court,  a  statement  was  made  by  the  learned  Additional

Solicitor General that on the next date of hearing, the status

of the investigations (into the allotment of coal blocks) shall

be made known to this Court through an affidavit filed by a

competent authority. The case was then adjourned to 12th

March, 2013.

7.    Pursuant  to  the  statement  made  by  the  learned

Additional Solicitor General, a status report was filed by the

CBI on 8th March, 2013 in a sealed cover. This status report

was perused on 12th March, 2013 and upon a consideration

of the entire matter, this Court required an affidavit to be

filed by the Director, CBI that the status report submitted

was  vetted by  him and nothing  therein  has  been shared

with the political executive. He was also required to state on

affidavit  that  the  same  procedure  would  be  followed  in

respect of  subsequent status reports that may be filed in

this Court.  The status report was then re-sealed and the

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 3 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 4

case adjourned to 30th April, 2013.

8. Acting  on the  above  order,  the  Director,  CBI  filed  the

requisite affidavit on 26th April, 2013.  When the case was

taken  up  on  30th April,  2013  the  affidavit  filed  by  the

Director, CBI was perused and this Court was of the view

that  the  following  aspects  needed  to  be  clarified  by  the

Director, CBI:

“(i) As to why in the status report dated 08.03.2013 no disclosure was made to this Court that the draft report has  been  shared  with  the  political  executive  and officials.

(ii) What was the basis and reasons for the C.B.I. in making  the  statement  on  12.03.2013  through  its counsel (Additional Solicitor General) before this Court that the status report dated 08.03.2013 has not been shared with any one and it is meant only for the Court.

(iii) In the affidavit now filed by the Director, C.B.I. on April 26, 2013 it is stated that the draft of the status report  dated  March  8,  2013  was  shared  with  the Minister of Law & Justice as desired by him prior to its submission before this Court and it was also shared with  Joint  Secretary  level  officers  each of  the  Prime Minister’s Officer and Ministry of  Coal as desired by them  but  nothing  has  been  said  in  the  affidavit whether or not changes were made in the draft report and,  if  yes,  at  whose  instance  and  the  extent  of changes  and  whether  besides  the  three  persons mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit, the draft report was shared with any other person in that meeting.

(iv) The names of the two officers one each of the Prime Minister’s  Office  and  Ministry  of  Coal  referred  to  in

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 4 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 5

para 4 of the affidavit.

(v) xxxx xxxxx (vi) xxxx xxxxx”

9. It  was  directed  that  an  affidavit  giving  the  above

information may be filed by the Director, CBI by 6th May,

2013 and the case was then adjourned to 8th May, 2013.  As

required, the Director,  CBI filed a further affidavit in this

regard on 6th May, 2013.

10.   When the case was taken up on 8th May, 2013 Mr.

Prashant  Bhushan  learned  counsel  for  Common  Cause

made his submissions.  Keeping the submissions in mind it

was directed that the Director, CBI shall henceforth ensure

the  secrecy  of  inquiries  and  investigations  into  the

allocation of coal blocks and that no access of any nature

whatsoever is provided to any person or authority including

any Minister of the Central Cabinet, Law Officers, Advocates

of the CBI, Director of Prosecution and Officials/Officers of

the Central Government.

11. It  is  in  the  background  of  the  above  broad  facts

relating to the secrecy (and purity) of the investigations that

IA No. 13/2014 appears to have been moved by Common

Cause with some additional facts having come to its notice

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 5 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 6

after the aforesaid orders were passed by this Court.

Pleadings and documents

12. Apart  from  stating  a  few  relevant  facts  in  the

application, what is of immediate concern is the averment

made in paragraph 9 of the application that Common Cause

has come to know that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI had

met several  persons at  his  residence who are accused in

prominent cases including the Coal Block Allocation scam

without  any  of  the  investigating  officers  being  present.

(Emphasis is given by us).

It  is  then  stated  in  Para  10  of  the  application  as

follows:

“It is of particular significance that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had several  meetings with Mr.  Vijay Darda,  and his son Mr. Devendra Darda, who are being investigated in  the  case  of  illegal  allocation of  coal  blocks.   Mr. Sinha also met with Mr. Subodh Kant Sahay, former Union Minister, whose brother’s company is one of the beneficiaries  of  the  allocation  of  coal  blocks  and  is being investigated by the CBI.”

13. In paragraph 11 of the application, it is stated that

there  is  an  ‘entry  register’  containing  details  of  visitors,

including the accused persons, who met Mr. Sinha at his

residence from time to time. It is stated that Mr. Sinha did

not  meet  them  at  his  office  or  in  the  presence  of  the

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 6 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 7

investigating officers. Rather, he met them at his residence

without the investigation team being present. A copy of the

‘entry register’ is filed in a sealed cover as an annexure to

the application.  

14. In  paragraph  12  of  the  application  a  reference  is

made to Mr. Ranjit Sinha meeting some accused persons in

what is commonly known as the 2G spectrum case being

an appeal filed by the Centre for PIL.2

15. At  this  stage  it  is  necessary  to  digress  a  bit  and

mention that in the 2G spectrum case, an application was

filed by the petitioner therein being IA No. 73 of 2014 in

which it was prayed as follows:

“(i)  Direct  the  CBI  Director  Shri  Ranjit  Sinha  not  to interfere  in  investigation  and  prosecution  of  the  case relating to the 2G spectrum allocation being carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.

(ii) Pass further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

16. An additional affidavit dated 5th September, 2014 was

also filed in support of IA No. 73 of 2014 in which it was

prayed that this Court should “order an SIT investigation

into  the  gross  abuse  of  authority  committed  by  the  CBI

Director in trying to scuttle investigations and prosecutions

2 Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010: Centre for PIL v. Union of India

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 7 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 8

being carried out by the CBI in 2G scam cases and other

prominent cases…”

17. After an elaborate hearing, this Court passed an order

in IA No. 73 of 2014 on 20th November, 2014 the relevant

portion of which reads as follows:

“To  protect  and  preserve  the  sanctity  and the  fair name of  the institution including the reputation of the  Office  of  the  Director  of  CBI,  we  are  not deliberately  giving  out  elaborate  reasons.  It  would suffice  for  us  to  observe  that  the  information furnished by the applicants is  prima facie  credible and therefore requires to be accepted.

Let it not be said by anybody, that we have not given any reasons while disposing of  the application. We are  reiterating  this  statement  only  to  prevent  flak from several quarters of the society. We would like to re-emphasize  that  elaborate  reasons  are  not necessary, only to protect the reputation of the CBI from being tarnished.

In  view of  the  above,  we  grant  the  aforesaid  relief sought  by  the  applicants  and  pass  the  following orders:-

(i)  We  recall  our  earlier  order  passed  on 15.09.2014 so far as it relates to I.A. No. 73 of 2014.

(ii) We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not  to  interfere  in  the  investigation  and prosecution  of  the  case  relating  to  the  2G spectrum allocation that is carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.

(iii) Shri Ranjit Sinha shall be replaced by the senior most officer of  the investigating team, constituted by the CBI to investigate into the

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 8 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 9

case  relating  to  the  2G  spectrum  allocation and continue the proceedings further.

With the above observations,  I.A.  No.  73 of  2014 (application for directions) is disposed of.”3

18. In support of his submission that an SIT should be

constituted to look into the abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit

Sinha in attempting to  scuttle  the  investigations into  the

coal block allocations, Mr. Prashant Bhushan filed a short

note  dated  12th January,  2015.  Along  with  the  note,  he

annexed a photocopy of a file in respect of the case against

the  Dardas  (abovementioned).  It  was  submitted  by  Mr.

Prashant  Bhushan  during  the  course  of  his  oral

submissions that the photocopy of the file was given to him

by a whistle blower.

19. In response, the CBI filed a note date 18th September,

2014 in  a  sealed  cover  indicating  the  detailed  procedure

followed by the CBI before a final  decision is  taken by a

competent  authority  on  closing  a  case  or  filing  a  charge

sheet. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the

procedure followed but it is necessary only to mention that

the CBI  does follow quite  a detailed and open process of

discussion and expression of views before a final decision is

3 (2015) 2 SCC 362

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 9 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 10

taken on matters before it.   We may record that we have

absolutely no quarrel with the procedure prescribed by the

CBI before it takes a final decision. With regard to the ‘entry

register’ relied upon by Mr. Prashant Bhushan it is stated

that a copy thereof has not been supplied to the counsel for

the  CBI  and  in  any  case  it  is  the  subject  matter  of  an

enquiry before another Bench dealing with the 2G spectrum

case.

20. The CBI also filed a note dated 20th February, 2015 in

a sealed cover. In this note, the merits of the controversy

relating  to  the  Dardas  are  adverted  to  and the  decisions

taken by the CBI have been justified. It is also stated that

the  strength  of  the  CBI  lies  in  the  multiple  levels  of

supervision  where  each  level  is  free  and  independent  in

expressing its views and recommendations.  It is only after

taking  account  of  these views and recommendations that

the  competent  authority  passes  a  final  order  which then

becomes the stand of the CBI.

21. With reference to the ‘entry  register’  or  the visitor’s

diary, it is stated that it has not been supplied to the CBI

and it was not maintained by the CBI.  It is submitted that

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 10 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 11

since false statements have been made by Common Cause

in respect of the case pertaining to the Dardas, the ‘visitor’s

diary’ must also be viewed with suspicion.

22. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated

8th May, 2013 passed by this Court to the effect that the

secrecy of the inquiries and investigations must be ensured.

It is submitted in this context that the fact that Common

Cause has obtained a copy of the note sheets of the office

file indicates that the secrecy of the concerned file has been

compromised and that the CBI is taking steps to ascertain

how the file moved out of the office.

23. Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan  filed  a  note  in  rejoinder

essentially reiterating the submissions made.  

24. As far as Crl.  MP No. 387/2015 filed by Mr. Ranjit

Sinha is concerned, he states that Mr. Prashant Bhushan,

Common Cause and Mr.  Kamal  Kant  Jaswal  of  Common

Cause  have  deliberately  made  misstatements  and  stated

facts that are not true with a view to mislead this Court. It

is submitted in the application that according to them, one

Mr. Moin Qureshi had dealings with Mr. Sinha and that an

appraisal  report  prepared by the Income Tax Department

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 11 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 12

contained some details in this regard. It is submitted that

this allegation was found to be incorrect and was stated so

by the learned Attorney General when he appeared in this

Court on 17th October, 2014.  This Court had also seen the

appraisal report and did not find anything to link Mr. Moin

Qureshi with Mr. Sinha.

25. It is also stated that in IA No. 13/2014 as well as the

additional affidavit filed in support of this application it has

been falsely stated that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had overruled his

subordinate officers with a view to bring a closure to certain

cases and this was false to the knowledge of Mr. Prashant

Bhushan and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal.

26. Significantly, in paragraph 6 of the application (that is

Crl.  MP No.  387 of  2015) Mr.  Sinha has adverted to the

contents of paragraph 9 of IA No.13/2014, wherein it has

been stated that Mr. Sinha met some accused persons in

some prominent cases including the Coal Block Allocation

case without the investigating officer being present.  While

adverting to this,  Mr.  Sinha states in paragraph 6 of  the

application as follows:-

“That it has wrongly been averred in para 9 that Shri. Sinha  (Former  Director,  CBI)  repeatedly  overruled  the

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 12 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 13

Investigating  Officers  and  forced  them  not  to  register FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered.  It has been further wrongly averred that Shri Sinha forced the officials to file closure reports in cases where FIR’s has already been registered.”  

27. It is noteworthy that Mr. Sinha does not deny that he

met  some  accused  persons  in  the  Coal  Block  Allocation

case without the investigating officer being present.

Submissions and discussion

28. We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan for Common Cause,

Mr. Amarendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel for the CBI

and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Ranjit

Sinha in considerable detail over a few days.

29. We are of the opinion that it is not at all necessary for

us, nor is it advisable at this stage, to enter the thicket of

allegations  made  by  Common  Cause  with  regard  to  the

investigations relating to the Dardas or the alleged attempt

by Mr. Ranjit Sinha to scuttle the investigations with regard

to one or more of the accused persons in that case. What is

of greater importance and what has caused us considerable

concern is that neither Mr. Ranjit Sinha nor the CBI denies

that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had met some persons, including the

Dardas, who are accused of criminality in the Coal Block

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 13 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 14

Allocations  case  without  the  investigating  officer  or  the

investigating team being present.   

30. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of Mr. Ranjit

Sinha that it is his job to meet the accused persons and to

get their point of view before taking a final decision in the

matter of their criminality. It is submitted that there is no

wrongdoing  if  he  as  the  Director  of  the  CBI  meets  some

accused persons so that if they are innocent, they should

not  unnecessarily  and  without  proper  justification  be

subjected to a criminal prosecution.

31. We need not comment on the opinion of Mr. Ranjit

Sinha  expressed  through  his  learned  counsel  Mr.  Vikas

Singh except to say that even if  Mr. Sinha is right, there

cannot  at  all  be  any  justification  for  him  to  meet  any

accused person in  a  criminal  case  where  investigation is

underway,  without  the  investigating  officer  being present,

whether  it  is  in  his  office  or  as  alleged  by  Mr.  Prashant

Bhushan, at his residence and that too, allegedly, several

times including late  at  night.   If  at  all  Mr.  Sinha as the

Director  of  the  CBI  had to  meet  any  accused  person for

obtaining his point of view on the allegations against him,

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 14 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 15

he should have done so in the presence of the investigating

officer  or  the investigating team. The fact  that  Mr.  Sinha

admittedly met some accused persons in the absence of the

investigating  officer  or  the  investigating  team  is  itself  a

cause for concern.  

32. There is a very high degree of responsibility placed on

an investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person is

not  subjected  to  a  criminal  trial.  This  responsibility  is

coupled  with  an  equally  high  degree  of  ethical  rectitude

required  of  an  investigating  officer  or  an  investigating

agency  to  ensure  that  the  investigations  are  carried  out

without any bias and are conducted in all fairness not only

to the accused person but also to the victim of any crime,

whether the victim is an individual or the State.

33. In  Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State4

this Court made the following observations with regard to

the entitlement of an accused to a fair investigation:

“In  the  Indian  criminal  jurisprudence,  the  accused  is placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under different  jurisprudence  of  some  of  the  countries  in  the world. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher  pedestal.  In  our  jurisprudence  an  accused  is presumed  to  be  innocent  till  proved  guilty,  the  alleged

4 (2010) 6 SCC 1

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 15 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 16

accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation  and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play balanced role  in  the  trial  of  a  crime.  The  investigation  should  be judicious,  fair,  transparent  and  expeditious  to  ensure compliance  with  the  basic  rule  of  law.  These  are  the fundamental  canons  of  our  criminal  jurisprudence  and they  are  quite  in  conformity  with  the  constitutional mandate  contained  in  Articles  20  and  21  of  the Constitution of India.”

34. Similarly,  in  Manohar  Lal  Sharma5this  Court

observed that investigations have to be fair, impartial and

uninfluenced by external influences.  It is stated as follows:

“A proper investigation into crime is one of the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law. The investigation by the police under the Code has to be fair, impartial and uninfluenced by external influences. Where investigation into crime is handled by CBI under the DSPE  Act,  the  same  principles  apply  and  CBI  as  an investigating  agency  is  supposed  to  discharge  its responsibility  with competence,  promptness,  fairness and uninfluenced and unhindered by external influences.”6

35. In  the  present  case,  the  contention  of  the  learned

counsel appearing on behalf of  Mr. Sinha is that there is

nothing  to  indicate  that  his  client  tried  to  scuttle  the

investigations and the reference to the investigations in the

case  of  the  Dardas  is  completely  misplaced.  It  was

contended by learned counsel appearing for the CBI as well

as learned counsel for Mr. Ranjit Sinha that a prayer for an

5 (2014) 2 SCC 532  6 Paragraph 33 of the Report

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 16 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 17

investigation by an SIT having not been accepted by this

Court in the application made in the 2G spectrum case, the

same request in this application should not be accepted.

36. As  mentioned  above,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to

examine  whether  the  investigation  into  the  case  of  the

Dardas was in any manner influenced by Mr. Sinha at any

point of time.  What is of importance is that as justice must

not only be done but it must also appear to have been done,

similarly,  investigations  must  not  only  be  fair  but  must

appear to have been conducted in a fair manner. The fact

that Mr. Sinha met some of the accused persons without the

investigating officer or the investigating team being present

disturbs us with regard to the fairness of the investigations.

This is all the more so if we keep in mind the fact that in the

2G scam investigations,  this  Court  had  concluded  in  its

order  dated  20th November,  2011  that  Mr.  Ranjit  Sinha

should not interfere in the investigation and prosecution of

the  case  relating  to  the  2G  spectrum  allocation  and  to

recuse himself from the case. That an SIT was not ordered

in the 2G spectrum case is not relevant. A view was taken

that  Mr.  Sinha should be directed to not  interfere in the

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 17 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 18

investigations  in  that  case  and  that,  coupled  with  his

meeting accused persons in the Coal Block Allocation case

without the investigating officer being present, is enough to

persuade  us  that  some  further  inquiry  is  necessary  to

ensure  that  the  investigations have  been fair  in  the  coal

block allocation cases where Mr. Sinha has had one or more

meetings with one or more accused persons.

37. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI passionately

submitted that any adverse order that we may pass in this

regard would irreparably damage the credibility of the CBI.

In  our  opinion  this  argument  is  fallacious.  If  an

independent inquiry shows that the CBI has acted fairly, it

will enhance its institutional credibility and its  image.  On

the other hand, if the independent inquiry shows that Mr.

Ranjit  Sinha  managed  to  influence  some  specific

investigations  in  the  Coal  Block  Allocations  case,  it  will

serve the larger public interest and will enable the CBI to

take appropriate corrective and remedial measures. Either

way, through an independent inquiry the CBI will  be the

beneficiary rather than the loser.

38. While opposing IA No. 13/2014 and supporting Crl.

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 18 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 19

MP No. 387/2015 Mr. Vikas Singh relied upon Perumal v.

Janaki7 to contend that when a palpably false statement is

made for extraneous reasons, it is an appropriate case for

the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code).

39. Similarly, reference was made to  State of Madhya

Pradesh v.  Narmada Bachao Andolan  & Anr.8 where

also this Court observed that it is a settled proposition of

law  that  a  false  statement  made  in  Court  or  in  the

pleadings to intentionally mislead the Court and to obtain a

favourable order amounts to criminal contempt as it tends

to impede the administration of justice.

40. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan referred to

Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K.Jain9 with

regard to the growing acceptance of the phenomenon of a

whistle blower.  This Court observed that the respondent in

that case was the whistle blower who had tried to highlight

the malfunctioning of an important institution established

for  dealing with cases involving the revenue of  the State

and  there  was  no  reason  to  silence  such  a  person  by

7 (2014) 5 SCC 377 8 (2011) 7 SCC 639 9 (2010) 8 SCC 281

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 19 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 20

invoking  the  contempt  powers  of  the  Court  under  the

Constitution or the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

41. Though  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  Sinha’s

learned  counsel  on  the  contents  of  his  application  were

limited, the oral submissions spread over a larger canvas. It

is  submitted  by  Mr.  Vikas  Singh  that  Mr.  Prashant

Bhushan,  Common  Cause  and  Mr.  Kamal  Kant  Jaswal

have  not  only  committed  perjury  but  are  also  guilty  of

contempt of Court and additionally Mr. Prashant Bhushan

has violated the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923

by placing on record the official  notes with regard to the

case  of  the  Dardas.  We  have  considered  Mr.  Sinha’s

application from all these angles.

42. In our opinion, the submissions made by Mr. Vikas

Singh in this regard do not deserve acceptance. It is true

that this Court had required the Director, CBI to ensure, by

its  order  dated  8th May,  2013  that  the  secrecy  of  the

inquiries  and  investigations  into  the  allocation  of  coal

blocks  is  maintained.   However,  if  somebody  accesses

documents  that  ought  to  be carefully  maintained by the

CBI, it is difficult to find fault with such a whistle blower

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 20 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 21

particularly when his or her action is in public interest. It is

another matter if the whistle blower uses the documents for

a  purpose  that  is  outrageous  or  that  may  damage  the

public interest. In that event, it would be permissible for

this Court or an appropriate Court to take action against

the whistle blower, if he or she is identified. However, the

present  case  is  not  of  any  such  category.   The  whistle

blower, whoever it is, acted purportedly in public interest

by  seeking  to  bring  out  what  he  or  she  believes  is  an

attempt by Mr.  Ranjit  Sinha to scuttle  the investigations

into the affairs of the Dardas or others in the Coal Block

Allocation  case.   As  mentioned  above,  we  are  not

considering  whether  the  file  notes  actually  disclose  an

attempt by Mr. Sinha to scuttle the investigations. All that

is  of  relevance  is  whether  the  disclosure  by  the  whistle

blower was mala fide or not. We are of the opinion that the

disclosures made by the whistle blower were intended to be

in public interest.

43. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Mr.

Prashant Bhushan or Common Cause or Mr. Kamal Kant

Jaswal  had  any  intention  to  mislead  this  Court  in  any

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 21 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 22

manner,  nor  do  we  agree  that  they  have  perjured

themselves.  The file notes speak for themselves and any

interpretation, even an allegedly twisted interpretation said

to have been given to them, cannot fall within the realm of

perjury.

44. As  far  as  the  allegation  that  there  has  been  a

violation of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923

is concerned, we are of the opinion that the file notes in

this case cannot be described as an ‘official secret’ for the

purposes of prosecuting Mr. Prashant Bhushan.

45. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 387 of 2015

is dismissed.

46. With regard to IA No. 13 of 2014, since we have held

that it was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha to

have met persons accused in the Coal Block Allocation case

without the investigating officer  being present or  without

the investigating team being present, it is necessary to look

into the question whether any one or more such meetings

of  Mr.  Sinha  with  accused  persons  without  the

investigating  officer  have  had  any  impact  on  the

investigations  and  subsequent  charge  sheets  or  closure

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 22 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012

Page 23

reports  filed  by  the  CBI.   We  require  assistance  in  this

matter,  particularly  for  determining  the  methodology  for

conducting such an inquiry. For rendering assistance to us

in  this  regard,  notice  be  issued to  the  Central  Vigilance

Commission returnable on 6th July, 2015.

...…………………….J                                            (Madan B. Lokur)

...…………………….J                                           (Kurian Joseph)

...…………………….J                                     (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi; May 14, 2015

I.A. 13 of 2014 and Crl.M.P. No.387 of 2015                                Page 23 of 23 IN W.P. (C) No. 463 of 2012