REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P.  NO. 125554 OF 2018

IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 205 OF 2018  

  Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors.                    .… Petitioners

versus

  Union of India & Ors. etc.                 …. Respondents

AND

CRL.M.P.  NO. 125550 OF 2018

IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 206 OF 2018  

Raj Kumar Brojen & Ors.       ….Petitioners

versus

Union of India & Ors.       …Respondents

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 205 & 206 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

  Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnel of

Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.  We have

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 1 of 20

been given to understand that these petitions have the support of a few

hundred  officers  from  the  Indian  Army,  the  paramilitary  forces  and

Manipur Police. These petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered by

us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of

India1 and  subsequent  orders  passed  therein  by  way  of  a  continuing

mandamus.  The prayer in the writ  petitions is for an appropriate writ,

order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to have been

made  by  us  which,  according  to  the  petitioners,  violate  their  rights

guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in the

writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with the continuing

mandamus in the case.   

2. Interlocutory  applications  have  also  been  moved  in  these  writ

petitions specifically for a direction that we should recuse from hearing

these  writ  petitions  which  should  be  placed  for  consideration  before

another Bench of this Court.  

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutory applications

for  recusal  but  we  find  no  merit  in  these  applications  and  therefore

dismiss them.    

The background

4. On  8th July,  2016  we  delivered  judgement  in Extra-Judicial

1 (2016) 14 SCC 536

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 2 of 20

Execution Victim Families Association. v. Union of India. We noted the

allegations made in the writ petition in the following words:

“The  allegations  made  in  the  writ  petition  concern  what  are described as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said to have been carried out by Manipur Police and the Armed Forces of the  Union,  including  the  Army.  According  to  the  police  and security forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims were militants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter-insurgency or anti-terrorist operations. Whether the allegations are completely or partially true or are entirely rubbish and whether the encounter is genuine or not is yet to be determined, but in any case there is a need to know the truth.

The  right  to  know the  truth  has  gained  increasing  importance over the years. This right was articulated by the United Nations High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  in  the  Sixty-second Session of the Human Rights Commission. In a study on the right to the truth, it was stated in Para 8 that though the right had its origins in enforced disappearances, it has gradually extended to include  extra-judicial  executions.  This  paragraph  reads  as follows:

“With  the  emergence  of  the  practice  of  enforced disappearances in the 1970s, the concept of the right to the truth  became  the  object  of  increasing  attention  from international and regional human rights bodies and special procedures  mandate-holders.  In  particular,  the  ad  hoc working  group  on  human  rights  in  Chile,  the  Working Group  on  Enforced  or  Involuntary  Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)  developed an important  doctrine  on this right with regard to the crime of enforced disappearances. These mechanisms initially based the legal source for this right upon Articles 32 and 33 of the Additional Protocol to the  Geneva  Conventions  of  12-8-1949.  Commentators have  taken  the  same  approach.  However,  although  this right was initially referred to solely within the context of enforced disappearances, it has been gradually extended to other  serious  human  rights  violations,  such  as  extra- judicial  executions  and  torture.  The  Human  Rights Committee  has  urged  a  State  party  to  the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to guarantee that the victims of human rights violations know the truth with

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 3 of 20

respect  to  the  acts  committed  and  know  who  the perpetrators  of  such  acts  were.”  [  Promotion  and Protection  of  Human Rights:  Study  on  the  right  to  the truth.  Report  of  the  Office  of  the  United  Nations  High Commissioner for Human Rights; 8-2-2006. Commission on Human Rights,  Sixty-second Session,  Item 17 of the provisional agenda.]

It is necessary to know the truth so that the law is tempered with justice. The exercise for knowing the truth mandates ascertaining whether fake encounters or extra-judicial executions have taken place  and if  so,  who are  the  perpetrators  of  the  human rights violations and how can the next of kin be commiserated with and what further steps ought to be taken, if any.”

5. While  concluding  the  decision,  we  observed  that  accurate  and

complete information had not been made available in respect of each of

the cases that the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association or

EEVFAM had complained about. Accordingly, we observed and directed

as follows:

“Unfortunately, we have not been given accurate and complete information about each of the 1528 cases that the petitioners have complained about. Therefore, there is a need to obtain and collate this  information  before  any final  directions  can  be given.  The learned amicus has told us that there are 15 cases out of 62 in which it has been held by the Justice Hegde Commission or by the  judicial  inquiries  conducted  at  the  instance of  the  Gauhati High Court that the encounters were faked. On the other hand, NHRC has informed us that there are 31 cases out of 62 in which it has been concluded that the encounters were not genuine and compensation awarded to the next of kin of the victims or the award of compensation is pending.

Therefore, as a first step, we direct:

Of  the  62  cases  that  the  petitioners  have  documented,  their representative  and  the  learned  amicus  will  prepare  a  simple tabular  statement  indicating  whether  in  each  case  a  judicial

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 4 of 20

enquiry  or  an  inquiry  by  NHRC  or  an  inquiry  under  the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 has been held and the result of the inquiry and whether any first information report or complaint or petition has been filed by the next of kin of the deceased. We request NHRC to render assistance to the learned amicus in this regard. We make it clear that since a magisterial enquiry is not a judicial  inquiry  and,  as  mentioned above,  it  is  not  possible  to attach  any importance  to  the  magisterial  enquiries,  the  tabular statement will not include magisterial enquiries.

The representative of the petitioners and the learned amicus will revisit  the  remaining cases  (1528 minus  62)  and carry  out  an identical  exercise  as  above.  This  exercise  is  required  to  be conducted  for  eliminating  those  cases  in  which  there  is  no information  about  the  identity  of  the  victim  or  the  place  of occurrence  or  any  other  relevant  detail  and  then  present  an accurate and faithful chart of cases in a simple tabular form.”

6. Subsequently, on 14th July, 20172 we took up the matter again, inter

alia, for ascertaining whether the first step that we had directed in our

judgement  and  order  of  8th July,  2016  had  been  acted  upon.  While

considering this, we recorded what could be described as the background

of the case in the following words:

“In the present petitions, the allegation was that 1528 persons had been killed in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union. By our judgment and  order  dated  8-7-2016  [Extra  Judicial  Execution  Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536: (2016) 14 SCC 578 (2)] we respectfully followed the view laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Naga People's Movement of Human  Rights v. Union  of  India  [Naga  People's  Movement  of Human  Rights v. Union  of  India,  (1998)  2  SCC  109].  The Constitution Bench held that an allegation of use of excessive force or retaliatory force by uniformed personnel resulting in the death of any person necessitates a thorough enquiry into the incident. We were of the opinion that even the “Dos and Don'ts” and the “Ten Commandments” of the Chief of Army

2 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 417

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 5 of 20

Staff believe in this ethos and accept this principle. However, after  considering  the  submissions  at  law,  we  found  that  the documentation was inadequate to immediately order any inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners and therefore directed them  to  complete  the  documentation  indicating  whether  the allegations  were  based  on  any  judicial  enquiry  or  an  enquiry conducted  by  the  National  Human  Rights  Commission  or  an enquiry conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

A tabular statement has since been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and this statement has been accepted by the learned Amicus Curiae and no objection was raised by the Union of India or by the State of Manipur. We therefore proceed on the basis of the tabular statement before us.

The petitioners have been able to gather information with regard to 655 deaths out of 1528 alleged in the writ petitions. The break- up is as follows:

Sl. No. Particulars No. of cases 1. Commissions of Inquiry cases 35 2. Judicial inquiry and High Court cases 37 3. NHRC cases 23 4. Cases with written complaint 170   5. Cases with oral complaint 78 6. Cases with eyewitnesses 134   7. Family claimed cases 178   

Total number 655

We have perused the tabular statement given with regard to cases with written complaints, oral complaints and eyewitness accounts as well as family claimed cases but find that apart from a simple allegation being made, no substantive steps appear to have been taken by either  lodging a  first  information  report  (FIR)  or  by filing a writ petition in the High Court concerned or making a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The allegations being very general in nature, we do not think it appropriate to pass any direction for the time being in regard to the cases concerning these written complaints, oral complaints, cases with eyewitness accounts and family claimed cases. It is not that every single allegation must necessarily be inquired into. It must  be  remembered  that  we  are  not  dealing  with  individual cases  but  a  systemic  or  institutional  response  relating  to constitutional criminal law.” (Emphasis supplied by us)

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 6 of 20

7. Thereafter, having considered the case law and submissions made

by the learned  Amicus and learned counsel for the parties including the

learned Attorney General, we held as follows:

“Having considered  the  issues  in  their  entirety,  we  are  of  the opinion  that  it  would  be  appropriate  if  the  Central  Bureau  of Investigation  (or  CBI)  is  required  to  look  into  these  fake encounters or use of excessive or retaliatory force. Accordingly, the  Director  of  CBI  is  directed  to  nominate  a  group  of  five officers to go through the records of the cases mentioned in the three tables given above, lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the  investigations  into  the  same  by  31-12-2017  and  prepare charge-sheets,  wherever  necessary.  The  entire  groundwork  has already been done either by the Commissions of Inquiry or by a Judicial Inquiry or by the Gauhati or Manipur High Court or by NHRC. We leave it to the Special Investigation Team to utilise the material already gathered, in accordance with law. We expect the State of Manipur to extend full cooperation and assistance to the  Special  Investigation  Team.  We  also  expect  the  Union  of India to render full assistance to the Special Investigation Team to complete the investigation at the earliest without any unnecessary hindrances or obstacles. The Director of CBI will nominate the team and inform us of its composition within two weeks.”

8. Notwithstanding the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this

Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India

and  the  explicit  directions  given  by  this  Court  in Extra-Judicial

Execution Victim Families Association v.  Union of India [EEVFAM]

the CBI was seemingly following up rather casually and taking its own

time to complete investigations, which were required to be completed by

31st December,  2017 and prepare charge-sheets/final  reports,  wherever

necessary.

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 7 of 20

9. In our order of 8th  January, 2018, we noted that on 23rd November,

2017  the  CBI  had  asked  for  increasing  the  strength  of  the  Special

Investigation Team (SIT) and we acceded to that request.  We noted that it

appeared to us that the matter was not being taken up by the CBI and the

SIT with the seriousness that it deserves.

10. Thereafter the EEVFAM case was adjourned a couple of times and

on 27th July 2018 we observed that  no final report  had been filed but

approval was granted in respect of one of them on 24th July, 2018 and in

respect of another, approval was granted on 26th July, 2018. Two other

cases were pending for approval. We also observed that the investigations

were taking an unduly long time and that we were not satisfied with the

progress made by the CBI so far. Consequently, we required the Director

of the CBI to let us know the steps that must be taken to ensure that the

investigations  are  completed  early  and  final  reports  are  filed  as

expeditiously  as  possible.  For  this  purpose,  we  required  the  personal

appearance of the Director of the CBI on 30th July, 2018.

11. On 30th July, 2018 the Director of the CBI appeared in Court. He

informed us that two charge-sheets had been filed in which there were 14

accused  persons  and  all  of  them  had  been  charged  with  an  offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section

120-B of the Indian Penal Code (murder and criminal conspiracy).  It was

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 8 of 20

also  pointed  out  that  these  accused  have  also  been  charged  with  an

offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (causing

disappearance  of  evidence  of  offence,  or  giving  false  information  to

screen  offender).  He  also  informed  us  that  some  more  final

reports/charge-sheets  would  be  filed  making  a  total  of  seven  final

reports/charge-sheets. On 30th July, 2018 we also recorded the submission

of learned counsel for EEVFAM that since the accused persons have been

charged  with  offences  punishable  as  above,  they  would  normally  be

arrested and that where investigations are going on in respect of similar

offences,  custodial  interrogation  would  be  necessary.  We recorded  the

submission but left it entirely to the discretion of the Director of the CBI

and the SIT to take a call on whether arrests should be made and whether

custodial interrogation should be carried out. We may mention that we

have not been informed whether and if, as of now, any arrests have been

made and whether and if any custodial interrogation has been carried out.

The present applications

12. It is in the above background that during the continuing mandamus

hearing of the petition filed by EEVFAM on 30th July, 2018 certain oral

observations were made and attributed to us. We need not go into the

correctness of the text or otherwise of the observations made or into the

context  in  which  they  were  made.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 9 of 20

observations said to have been made were widely reported in the press

with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. The observations led

to the filing of the present two writ petitions. The prayer made in both the

writ petitions is identical. We are not, for the present, concerned with the

maintainability  or  otherwise of  the writ  petitions  or  the grant  of  final

relief  to  the  petitioners  herein.  What  we  are  concerned  with  are  the

applications for directions moved in both the writ petitions. The prayer

made in these applications reads as follows:

“direct that the Hon’ble Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan  B.  Lokur  and  Hon’ble  Mr  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit hearing of the present writ petition recuse itself and that the writ petition be placed for hearing by another Bench of this Hon’ble Court in accordance with law.”

13. In  the  applications,  the  petitioners  make  a  reference  to  various

newspaper  reports  and  it  is  submitted  that  the  reported  observations

coming  from  the  highest  court  of  the  country  have  created  a  real

apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner in

which EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted that

hearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subserve

the cause of  justice but  the prayer should not  be construed as casting

aspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that there is

a real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner in

which the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that the

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 10 of 20

apprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of the

proceedings  held  on  30th July,  2018  widely  reported  in  the  print  and

electronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and every

one of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only a police

report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has

been  filed.  The  applicants/petitioners  have  referred  to  a  few

decisions/case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during

the course of hearing of the application, referred to a few other decisions.

All  this  was  supplemented  by  written  submissions.  The  principal

decisions  relied  on  were:  (i)  Manoj  Narula  v.  Union  of  India3,  (ii)

Usmangani  Adambhai  Vahora  v.  State  of  Gujarat4,  (iii)  Captain

Amarinder  Singh v.  Prakash  Singh Badal5 and  (iv)  Supreme Court

Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter).6

Some decisions of foreign jurisdictions have also been referred to and

relied on.   

Submissions

14. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Union of

India supported the prayer made in the applications but did not file any

written  submissions.  It  was  orally  submitted  by  the  learned  Attorney

General  that  the  observations  made  by  this  Court  had a  demoralising 3 (2014) 9 SCC 1 4 (2016) 3 SCC 370  5 (2009) 6 SCC 260 6 (2016) 5 SCC 808

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 11 of 20

effect on the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police

or in any event, it had affected the morale of these forces in their fight

against insurgency.

15. In  response  to  these  submissions,  it  was  contended  by  learned

counsel appearing on behalf of EEVFAM that the allegations made by the

petitioners  were  reckless  and  without  reading  the  articles  in  the

newspapers. It was also submitted that the allegations hurled at the Court

were of  a serious nature and ought to have been made after  a careful

study and cross-checking the facts from those who were present in court,

but nothing of that sort seems to have been done in the present case. The

learned counsel then placed reliance upon a few decisions of this Court

on the subject of recusal of judges from a case. Apart from giving his

interpretation  to  the  decisions  cited  by  learned  counsel  for  the

applicants/petitioners, it was submitted by learned counsel for EEVFAM

that the attempt of the applicants/petitioners was to put pressure on this

Court to keep its hands off the case.

16. Learned  Amicus submitted  that  the  applications  filed  by  the

applicants/petitioners were  mala fide and  amounted  to  gross  forum

shopping.  It  was  submitted  that  the  applications  as  well  as  the  writ

petitions be dismissed with exemplary costs. It was submitted that even

though the learned Attorney General supported the prayer for recusal, he

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 12 of 20

clarified that none of the parties were questioning the integrity or fairness

in the investigations carried out by the SIT appointed by the Director of

the CBI on the directions of this Court. She further submitted that the

contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners were based on a selective

reading of the news reports and even assuming what was attributed to this

Court was correct,  the observations could not hamper or influence the

trial of the officers who are charge-sheeted. She pointed out that on the

issue of arrest of the accused persons, this Court had explicitly left the

matter  to  the  discretion  of  the  Director  of  the  CBI  and  the  SIT.  She

submitted that learned counsel for the petitioners had a duty as an officer

of the court to refrain from making allegations of bias on flimsy grounds

particularly  in  view  of  the  order  passed  on  30th July,  2018.  Learned

Amicus  referred  to  certain  decisions  on  the  subject  of  recusal  and

submitted that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, monitoring

the investigation by the CBI or the SIT was necessary. Finally,  it  was

submitted that if the present applications are allowed, then in all cases

where judges of  this Court make enquiries which are probing or  even

inconvenient to one of the parties in the matter, they could be compelled

to recuse themselves. Learned  Amicus drew attention to  R.K. Anand v.

Registrar, Delhi High Court.7

7 (2009) 8 SCC 106

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 13 of 20

17. The effective prayer of the applicants/petitioners is that in view of

the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018

the investigations should be monitored by another set of judges of this

Court.   Our  recusal  is  sought  on  the  ground  that  as  a  result  of  the

observations said to have been made,  the applicants/petitioners have a

real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial (if any) would

be tainted to their prejudice.       

18. Having heard the learned Attorney General,  learned counsel  and

learned  Amicus and having gone through the written submissions filed,

we are of the view that the apprehension of the applicants/petitioners that

justice will not be done to them is misplaced if not unfounded.

Decision

19. The  decisions  referred  to  and  relied  upon  have  been  fully

considered by us.  The discussion on recusal has been exhaustively dealt

with in the cited decisions and there is nothing to add to it.  But we find a

crucial distinguishing feature in the case of EEVFAM and the cited cases.

20. It is undeniable that the  EEVFAM case pertains to allegations of

serious violations of the human rights of persons described as insurgents.

A large number of such persons were killed in operations carried out by

the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police. Whether the

death/killing  of  such  persons  was  justified  or  not  is  a  matter  of

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 14 of 20

investigation by the SIT. It is nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was

not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. On the contrary,

the learned Attorney General submitted that the integrity or fairness of the

investigations were not in question. As mentioned above, no one disputed

this.  

21. The distinguishing feature is this: The substantive legal and factual

issues raised in  EEVFAM have already been decided by us and what

remains  is  the  continuing  mandamus  requiring  implementation  of  the

orders of the Court.  During the hearing of EEVFAM and even after the

decision  was  rendered  on  substantive  legal  and  factual  issues,  no

allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not

be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made.  It is only at

the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and that too

on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by this Court.

22. What  is  pending  at  the  continuing  mandamus  stage  is  the

implementation  of  the  orders  of  the  court  which  necessitate  a  fair

investigation by the CBI and the SIT constituted by the Director of the

CBI.  There is no allegation of any nature with respect to the impartiality

and integrity of the SIT.  Indeed, the learned Attorney General made it

clear that no one was disputing the capability, expertise and fairness of

the CBI and the investigations carried out by the SIT.

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 15 of 20

23. Even  during  the  hearing  of  the  applications  and  in  the  written

submissions, no doubt has been cast on the integrity and fairness of the

investigations.  In any event, we make it clear that the law of the land is

quite explicit  that no one, and that means no one,  can interfere in the

investigations  being  carried  out  by  the  Investigating  Officer  or  an

Investigating Team.   This law is well settled and does not need any re-

consideration.  The purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure

that  there  is  no  interference  during  the  course  of  investigations  from

anybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any

other  pressure  (including,  as  it  seems,  ‘judicial  pressure’)  that  could

compromise the investigations.  It is only when the Investigating Officer

or the Investigating Team is given a free hand that the investigations will

be meaningful, fair and with integrity.    

24. Yet another purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the

Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team (as the case may be) does

not deviate from the natural course of investigations for whatever reason,

either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous

reason.  This is the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring

investigations in a continuing mandamus.  

25. Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to have

been made by this Court on 30th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 16 of 20

erroneous.

26. It is equally clear that once the judicial process has begun with the

filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concerned

court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings.  No one,

and  that  again  means  no  one,  can  interfere  in  the  course  of  judicial

proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in the due course

of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason that when

investigations are complete and a final report or charge sheet is filed, the

Constitutional  Court  keeps  its  hands  off  any  further  progress  in  the

matter. We are fortunate to have an independent judiciary and as far as the

EEVFAM case is concerned there has been no allegation of any kind that

any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown a lack of independence.

Interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice

would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the

applicants/petitioners to harbour any apprehension that the Trial Judge(s)

would be influenced by the observations said to have been made by this

Court on 30th July, 2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps

unwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of the judiciary.

27. The upshot of this discussion is that there can be no interference in

investigations and the courts cannot brook any interference in the judicial

process.  An exception may occur as we have noticed above, when there

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 17 of 20

is  an unjustified deviation from the natural course of investigations or

illegal interference in the judicial process.  Such a situation would be rare

and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and it is to pre-

empt  this  that  the  Constitutional  Courts  monitor  investigations  on

extraordinary  occasions.  Consequently,  the  apprehension  expressed  by

the applicants/petitioners that due to the observations said to have been

made by this Court there would be interference in the investigations by

the SIT all interference in the due judicial process by the courses not real

or justified.

28. The  decisions  cited  before  us  by  learned  counsel  and  learned

Amicus do not deal with or concern the situation confronting us.

29. A few other  contentions  have  been  urged  before  us  by  learned

counsel for the applicants/petitioners. It is submitted that the observations

said to have been made by this Court can impact on the decisions to be

taken by the SIT. We do not find any basis for any such apprehension.

The SIT is independent and so far, no allegation of unfairness has been

made against the functioning of the SIT. Observations made by this Court

or any court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as long as

they are conducted by professionals and we have no doubt that the SIT

does consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any observations

made by this Court during the continuing mandamus process.

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 18 of 20

30. It  was also submitted and this submission was supported by the

learned Attorney General that the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces

and the Manipur Police have been demoralised by the observations made

by this Court. This is a rather overbroad submission. In any event, in our

opinion, it should be clear to everyone that officers and personnel of the

Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police are made of much

sterner  stuff  than  is  sought  to  be  projected  and  they  can  hardly  be

demoralised by observations said to have been made by anybody.   It is

unfortunate  that  a  bogey  of  demoralization  of  the  Indian  Army,

paramilitary forces and the State Police is being raised. We are unable to

comprehend the reason for this.  As mentioned earlier, the Indian Army,

paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police are made of sterner stuff and

are disciplined forces strong enough to take everything in their stride.  To

contend that  some observations said to have been made by this Court

have  demoralized  the  Indian  Army,  the  paramilitary  forces  and  the

Manipur Police is suggestive of a weakness in them. Be that as it may,

this is really stretching the argument to the vanishing point.    

31. That apart, there is no material to support the theory of the Indian

Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police being demoralised. It is

only a submission made for some unfathomable reason.  

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 19 of 20

32. The continuing mandamus must go on and the independence and

integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-

sheets must be maintained.  Therefore, even though there is no reason for

the  applicants/petitioners  to  entertain  any  doubt  that  the  SIT  or  the

judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to have been made

by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, we make it absolutely clear

that any observations made or said to have been made on 30 th July, 2018

during  the  implementation  of  the  orders  of  this  Court  through  a

continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in any manner

be construed as compromising the independence, integrity and fairness of

the SIT and the concerned judges.  Institutional integrity of the CBI and

the judiciary is positively required to be maintained.

33. We see  no merit  in  these  applications  and they are  accordingly

dismissed.  The  writ  petitions  be  listed  for  preliminary  hearing  on

26th November, 2018 at 2 PM.

 ...……………………J  (Madan B. Lokur)  

                                                                     ...…………………....J New Delhi;                       (Uday Umesh Lalit)  November 12, 2018   

 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc.    Page 20 of 20