Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.224 OF 2011

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10660 OF 2010

Rajeshwar Singh    …Petitioner

Versus

Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We may, at the outset, point out that, at this stage, we are  

only examining the maintainability of this contempt petition, on  

which  arguments  have  been  advanced  by  the  learned  senior  

counsels  on  either  side.   This  contempt  petition  has  been

Page 2

2

preferred under Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India, read  

with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short  

‘the Act’) and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for  

Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

2. Shri  Ram Jethmalani,  learned senior counsel  appearing for  

the first respondent, submitted that this contempt petition is not  

maintainable since it has been filed without the consent of the  

Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned in Section 15  

of  the Act.   Learned senior  counsel  submitted that neither the  

order  of  this  Court  dated  06.05.2011  nor  the  notice  dated  

23.05.2011  gives  any  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  criminal  

contempt  to  be  defended  by  the  respondent.   Learned  senior  

counsel further submitted that even the notice dated 23.05.2011  

does not comply with Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings  

for  Contempt  of  the  Supreme  Court,  1975.   Learned  senior  

counsel also submitted that it does not mention whether it is a  

civil  contempt or a criminal contempt.  Learned senior counsel  

also  submitted  that  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  first  

respondent  had  any  knowledge  of  this  Court’s  order  dated

Page 3

3

16.03.2011.  Consequently, it cannot be said that there was any  

willful disobedience of that order.  Further, such an allegation is  

not  even  raised  in  the  notice.  Reliance  was  placed  on  the  

Judgment of this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board and others  

v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others  (1970) 3 SCC 98.  

Learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  order,  on  which  

disobedience is alleged to have been committed, is not within the  

knowledge of the respondent and he is not expected or bound to  

know the same from the media or newspapers.   Learned senior  

counsel also pointed out that the burden to prove the knowledge  

is not on the alleged contemnors, as held by this Court in Bharat  

Steel Tubes Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77.

3. Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

second  respondent,  submitted  that  consent  of  the  Attorney  

General  is  a  pre-requisite  to  initiate  contempt  of  court  

proceedings,  which is  not  an empty formality.   Learned senior  

counsel submitted that second respondent is not a party to any of  

the orders passed by this Court and he has not violated any order  

passed by this court.  Further, it was also pointed out that even

Page 4

4

the notice is silent in what manner the second respondent has  

violated the order passed by this Court.  Learned senior counsel  

submitted that even the powers conferred on this Court to issue  

suo motu notice is also limited and could be exercised only in  

exceptional  circumstances.   Learned  senior  counsel  placed  

reliance  on  the  Judgments  of  this  Court  in  J.R.  Parashar,  

Advocate and others v.  Prashant Bhushan, Advocate and  

others (2001) 6 SCC 735 and  Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v.  

State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 705.  

4. Shri  Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

third respondent,  also refuted all  the allegations raised against  

the third respondent and submitted that he has nothing to do with  

the service tenure in the Enforcement Directorate or the cases  

relating to 2G Scam.  Learned senior counsel also submitted that  

the contempt petition itself is not maintainable.

5. Shir  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  

the C.B.I., submitted that the contempt alleged is not merely a  

criminal  contempt  but  also  a  civil  contempt.   Learned  senior  

counsel  referred to Section 2(b) of the Act and submitted that

Page 5

5

there has been willful disobedience of the directions of this Court  

by the respondents jointly and severally.  Learned senior counsel  

also referred to Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act and submitted that the  

attempt  of  the  respondents  is  to  interfere  and  obstruct  the  

investigation  conducted  by  the  petitioner,  which  is  being  

supervised and monitored by this Court.  Learned senior counsel  

further  submitted  that  this  Court  under  Article  129  read  with  

Article  142  of  the  Constitution  has  the  power  to  see  that  the  

investigation which is being supervised/monitored by this Court is  

not interfered with by any person or from any quarters.  Learned  

senior counsel also submitted that no sanction from the Attorney  

General  is  necessary  when  this  Court  suo  motu initiates  the  

contempt proceedings in exercise of the powers conferred under  

Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, irrespective  

of the provisions of the Act and the Rules to Regulate proceedings  

for  Contempt  of  the  Supreme  Court,  1975.   Learned  senior  

counsel  placed  considerable  reliance  on  the  Judgment  of  this  

Court  in  Amicus Curiae v.  Prashant Bhushan and another  

(2010) 7 SCC 592.

Page 6

6

6. We  are,  in  this  case,  concerned  with  the  question  as  to  

whether  there  has  been  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  

respondents  to  interfere  with  an  investigation  which  is  being  

monitored  by  this  Court.   When  a  court  monitors  a  criminal  

investigation it is the responsibility and duty of the court to see  

that the investigation is being carried out in the right direction  

and  the  Officers,  who  are  entrusted  with  the  task  be  not  

intimidated or pressured by any person, however high he may be.  

Considerable responsibility and duty is cast on the court when it  

monitors  a  criminal  investigation.   People  have  trust  and  

confidence when court monitors a criminal investigation and the  

court  has  to  live  up  to  that  trust  and  confidence  and  any  

interference from any quarters to scuttle that investigation, has to  

be sternly dealt with.   

7. Civil  Appeal  No.10660  of  2010,  in  which  the  present  

contempt petition has been preferred, was filed under Article 136  

of  the  Constitution  of  India  praying  for  a  court  monitored  

investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), what  

was described as 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to

Page 7

7

investigate the role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister for  

DoT, senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and others.  

Before this Court, it was pointed out that the CBI had lodged a  

first  information  report  on  21.10.2009  alleging  that  during  the  

years  2000-2008  certain  officials  of  the  DoT  entered  into  a  

criminal conspiracy with certain private companies and misused  

their  official  position  in  the  grant  of  Unified  Access  Licenses  

causing wrongful loss to the nation, which was estimated to be  

more than Rs.22,000 crores.  CBI, following that, registered a case  

No.RC-DAI-2009-A-0045(2G Spectrum Case) on 21.10.2009 under  

Section 120B IPC, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  

1988 against a former Cabinet Minister and others.

8. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) also conducted an  

inquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission  

Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences.  

The CVC on 12.10.2009 had forwarded the inquiry report to the  

Director,  CBI  to  investigate  into  the  matter  to  establish  the  

criminal conspiracy in the allocation of 2G Spectrum under UASL  

policy of DoT and to bring to book all  wrongdoers.   This Court

Page 8

8

after taking into consideration of the report of the CVC as well as  

the findings recorded by the CAG agreed for a court monitored  

investigation and passed the following order:

“We  are,  prima  facie,  satisfied  that  the  allegations  contained  in  the  writ  petition  and  the  affidavits  filed  before this Court, which are supported not only by the  documents produced by them, but also the report of the  Central  Vigilance Commission,  which was forwarded to  the  Director,  CBI  on  12.10.2009  and  the  findings  recorded by the CAG in the Performance Audit Report,  need a thorough and impartial investigation.  However,  at this stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint  a Special Team to investigate what the appellants have  described  as  2G  Spectrum  Scam  because  the  Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid  down  in  Vineet  Narain’s  case,  agreed  for  a  Court  monitored investigation.”

9. This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and co-

ordinated  investigation  by  the  CBI  and  the  Enforcement  

Directorate, vide its order dated 16.12.2010 gave the following  

directions:

(i)    The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation  into various issues high-lighted in the report of  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission,  which  was  forwarded to the director, CBI vide letter dated  12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have  prima  facie  found  serious  irregularities  in  the  grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of  whom  are  said  to  be  ineligible,  the  blatant  violation of the terms and conditions of licences

Page 9

9

and huge loss to the public exchequer running  into  several  thousand  crores.   The  CBI  should  also probe how licences were granted to large  number  of  ineligible  applicants  and  who  was  responsible for the same and why the TRAI and  the  DoT  did  not  take  action  against  those  licensees who sold their stake/equities for many  thousand  crores  and  also  against  those  who  failed  to  fulfill  rollout  obligations  and  comply  with other conditions of licence.

(ii)     The  CBI  shall  conduct  the  investigation  without  being  influenced  by  any  functionary,  agency  or  instrumentality  of  the  State  and  irrespective of the position, rank or status of the  person to be investigated/probed.

(iii)    The CBI shall, if it has already not registered  first  information  report  in  the  context  of  the  alleged irregularities committed in the grant of  licences from 2001 to 2006-2007, now register a  case  and  conduct  thorough  investigation  with  particular  emphasis  on the  loss  caused to  the  public exchequer and corresponding gain to the  licensees/service providers and also on the issue  of allowing use of dual/alternate technology by  some service providers even before the decision  was  made  public  vide  press  release  dated  19.10.2007.

(iv)    The CBI shall also make investigation into the  allegation of grant of huge loans by the public  sector  and  other  banks  to  some  of  the  companies  which  have succeeded  in  obtaining  licences  in  2008  and  find  out  whether  the  officers of the DoT were signatories to the loan  agreement executed by the private companies  and if so, why and with whose permission they  did so.

Page 10

10

(v)    The  Directorate  of  Enforcement/  concerned  agencies  of  the  Income  Tax  Department  shall  continue  their  investigation  without  any  hindrance or interference by any one.

(vi)    Both  the  agencies,  i.e.  the  CBI  and  the  Directorate  of  Enforcement  shall  share  information with each other and ensure that the  investigation  is  not  hampered  in  any  manner  whatsoever.

(vii)    The  Director  General,  Income  Tax  (Investigation) shall, after completion of analysis  of  the  transcripts  of  the  recording  made  pursuant to the approval accorded by the Home  Secretary, Government of India,  hand over the  same  to  CBI  to  facilitate  further  investigation  into the FIR already registered or which may be  registered hereinafter.”

10. CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to apprise  

this  Court  of  the  various  stages  of  the  investigation  and seek  

directions and this Court, on 10.02.2011, passed an order stating  

that  since  this  Court  is  monitoring  the  investigation  of  2G  

Spectrum Scam no court shall pass any order which may, in any  

manner,  impede the investigation being carried out by the CBI  

and the Directorate of Enforcement.  Learned Attorney General  

also informed this Court that he had received a communication on

Page 11

11

16.03.2011  from the  Delhi  High  Court  of  nominating  Shri  O.P.  

Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, as the Special  

Judge  to  take  up  the  trial  of  cases  relating  to  what  has  been  

described as 2G Scam.  The Court was also informed that two  

separate notifications would be issued by the Central Government  

in terms of Section 3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the  

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of  

the Special  Court to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G  

Scam and other related offences.  Following that, two notifications  

were published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary, on the 28th  

March, 2011.

11. Noticing the above submissions a detailed order was passed  

by this Court on 16.03.2011, which inter alia reads as follows:

“While adjourning the case, we make it  clear that no  one including the newspapers shall  interfere with the  functioning of  the C.B.I.  team and the officers of  the  Enforcement  Directorate  who  are  investigating  what  has been described as 2G Scam and the Court will take  serious  cognizance  of  any  endeavour  made  by  any  person or group of persons in this regard.”

12. Petitioner - the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate  

who is invested with the responsibility and duty of investigating

Page 12

12

the  2G  Spectrum  case,  submits  that,  during  the  course  of  

investigation,  he  could  come  across  various  materials,  having  

considerable bearing on the investigation relating to 2G Scam.  

The petitioner, in this contempt petition, has stated as follows:

“Facts  came  to  the  notice  of  the  Directorate  of  Enforcement  that  one  M/s  Sahara  India  Investment  Corporation, a Sahara group company, now known as  M/s  Sahara  Prime  City  Ltd.,  during  the  course  of  investigation it is revealed that the said company had  invested Rs.14.00 Crores on 28.09.2007 on which date  M/s S-Tel Ltd., had applied for 16 more licences.  This  investment has been purportedly made for purchase of  shares of M/s S-Tel.  Surprisingly, this investment has  been  sold  back  on  15.01.2009  for  an  amount  of  Rs.16.80 Crores.  In view of these financial details being  revealed  during  the  course  of  investigation  and  considering the fact that this entire 2G Spectrum case,  there has been several ways of transactions, which was  deemed appropriate to  investigate this  aspect  of  the  matter also and accordingly on 02.02.2011, a summon  had been issued to the Managing Director of the said  Company  requiring  his  personal  appearance  on  17.02.2011.  The Managing Director is Mr. Subrata Roy  Sahara, who chose not to appear, but, to apply for an  adjournment for four weeks.  Taking into consideration  said request a fresh summon was issued on 30.03.2011  requiring  his  appearance  on  08.04.2011.   He  is  respondent No.1,  above named, and he chose not to  appear even on 08.04.2011 and has, thus, shown non  cooperative attitude.”

13. The petitioner,  with reference to Sahara India Commercial  

Corporation Limited, has stated as follows:

Page 13

13

“That there is yet another Sahara Group company by  the name Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited  based in Mumbai, which has purportedly paid Rs.9.50  Crores on 06.07.2007 to one M/s Sky City Foundation  Pvt. Ltd., as an advance.  This Sky City Foundation has  in turn invested the very same money with M/s S-Tel,  just before the date of application of M/s S-Tel made to  the DoT for issuance of Universal Access Service (UAS)  Licence on 09.07.2007.

That  in  view  of  the  said  fact,  it  was  deemed  appropriate to summon the concerned officials of the  said  Co.  M/s  Sahara  India  Commercial  Corporation  Limited on 07.04.2011 and for the purpose the summon  was issued on 30.03.2011.”

14. The  petitioner,  referring  to  the  second  Status  Report  

covering the period from 27.11.2010 to 08.02.2011, has referred  

to  the  involvement  of  M/s  Sahara  India  Investment  Ltd.,  now  

known as M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and stated as follows:

“The  said  status  report  also  mentions  other  details  about  the  acquisition  of  other  two  companies  by  a  group in March, April, 2009 in respect of which letters  for inquiry have been sent to Mauritius.  It is deemed  expedient  not  to  disclose  further  details  in  this  application on account of the fact that the Directorate  of Enforcement is investigating into the money trail and  if  further  details  are  disclosed  in  the  application  the  same  is  likely  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  interest  of  investigation.   However,  the  applicant  undertakes  to  disclose such other facts including the status report in a  sealed cover to this Hon’ble Court, if so directed.

Page 14

14

It is further respectfully submitted that in the third  Status Report, covering the period from 09.02.2011 to  17.03.2011 also mentions about a person being issued  summon.   The said  fact  is  mentioned on page 20 in  paragraph 20-D.  Details therein clearly show that M/s  S-Tel  Pvt.  Ltd.  had  arranged  for  certain  funds  from  various groups to pay licence fee.  On Page 21 of the  said  Status  Report,  it  is  mentioned  that  further  investigation  in  respect  of  the  companies  named  therein  just  above  paragraph  20-E  is  in  progress.  Similarly in the fifth Status Report, filed on 26.04.2011,  there is a mention in paragraph 6-B regarding sale of  holding of a company and funding of M/s S-Tel by two  groups  mentioned  therein.   The  fact  of  Sahara  India  Commercial Corporation having sought adjournment is  also mentioned in the said Status Report.”

15. The petitioner, referring to the Sahara Group of Companies,  

stated as under:

“It  is  further  submitted  that  yet  another  reference  dated 11.06.2010 as forwarded by the Head Quarter of  the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement has been  received  from  an  Intelligence  Unit  of  India,  which  interalia alleges that Sh. Subrata Roy, respondent No. 1  of  M/S.  Sahara Group of  Companies alongwith others  have deposited an amount of Rs.150 Crores which has  been rotated through a maze of financial transactions  between accounts of M/S. Sahara Corporation and M/S.  Sahara India within the same branch/bank.   On basis of  said input, the Directorate of Enforcement had initiated  discreet enquiries against M/s. Sahara Corporation and  M/s.  Sahara  India  for  alleged  violation  of  Foreign  Exchange Management Act, 1999.  This investigation is  handled by the present  applicant,  who made several  enquiries with number of banks by issuing directives on  23.07.2010 and 28.07.2010.  This investigation involves  over  100  banks  and  accounts  and  large  financial

Page 15

15

transactions  are  being  investigated.   The  modus  operandi that was adopted is resorting to cash deposits  of  huge  amounts  on  different  dates  in  different  accounts and at remote far  off  places of the country  and withdrawal  immediately by cheques which would  show  that  there  is  a  clear  attempt  prima  facie  to  legitimize the amounts.    Details from four banks have  been received which show cash deposits of more than  Rs.24 Crores, so far.

That further investigation have revealed that M/s.  Sahara India is operating more than 334 bank accounts  and  details  thereof  has  been  sought  from  all  those  banks which are yet to be scrutinized.  This matter is  also  referred  to  the  Income  Tax  Department  on  29.09.2010 for further necessary action at their end.

That  during  the  course  of  enquiries  a  further  information is received from a reliable sources that a  company  having  registered  office  opposite  Domestic  Airport in Mumbai, which is a group company of Sahara  Group, has given a loan a huge amounts in pounds to a  company in Mauritius, which is purported to be a short  term loan and investment  in  hospitality  sector.   This  amount  was  transferred  under  an  automatic  route  through  a  bank  in  Mumbai  and  this  amount  is  transferred  to  a  foreign  country  for  acquisition  of  a  property  of  a  hotel  company  whose  shares  were  pledged  with  the  Bank  and  which  money  has  been  utilized  to  repay  the  outstanding  of  the  bank.  Summons are issued to the concerned bankers of the  said companies for 09.05.2011 for appearance of these  bankers for recording of their statements.   This entire  matter  is  also  referred  to  by  the  applicant  to  the  Reserve Bank of India on 22.03.2011 and 11.04.2011  and response to some queries are yet to be received  and  the  investigation  in  the  said  matter  is  under  progress.

Page 16

16

That  there  is  yet  another  investigation  which  is  popularly  referred  is  as  Madhu  Koda  Scam  case  in  respect of which the Division Bench of High Court of  Jharkhand has issued directions,  directing the Central  Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation as  regards  the  predicate  offence  and  directed  the  Directorate of Enforcement to investigate offence under  Foreign Exchange Management Act and Prevention of  Money Laundering Act, 2002.  These investigations are  also under progress and are conducted by the applicant  as  an  Investigating  Officer.    In  this  investigation  properties  worth  Rs.125  Crores  have  already  been  attached  in  exercise  of  powers  under  Prevention  of  Money  Laundering  Act  and  during  the  course  of  investigation it is suspected that large amount of funds  which are tainted money which are proceeds of crime  have  been  invested  in  Sahara  Group  companies  by  those accused persons with a view to project them as  untainted money. The investigation of this is also being  carried.  

It  is  submitted  that  all  these  investigations  undertaken  by  the  petitioner  applicant,  before  your  lordship,  has  irked  the  Sahara  Group  and  more  particularly the respondents.”   

16. Petitioner submits that he is  being personally attacked by  

the respondents through various means so that he will not make  

further  headway  in  the  investigation.   The  petitioner  has  

explained in Paras 5 to 12 of the petition, the manner in which he  

is being intimidated, which read as follows:

“5. That  when investigations  have been initiated in  the 2G Spectrum case against them, the respondents  have  conspired  to  interfere  with  the  original  2G

Page 17

17

Spectrum case investigations so as to derail the same,  the details whereof are stated hereinafter.

It may not be out of place to mention that M/s.  Sahara Airlines, which is now taken over by Jet Airways  and operated under the banner of Jetlite are also facing  investigations for  violation under FERA, 1973 and an  opportunity  show  cause  notice  was  issued  prior  to  launching  prosecution  which  has  been made subject  matter  of  a  challenge  before  the  High  Court  at  Lucknow.

That  by  an  interim  order  dated  21.05.2002,  further proceedings have been stayed and on the said  fact having come to my notice while I  was Assistant  Director  Incharge  of  Lucknow  Zone,  I  had  filed  application to get the interim order vacated.

6. It is submitted that on 02.05.2011 having come to  know from reliable sources that some business house /  liaison  persons together  with  disgruntled government  officials  had  initiated  a  campaign  of  making  false  anonymous and pseudonymous  complaints to various  agencies and started spreading rumours, the applicant  deemed  appropriate  to  send  the  latest  immovable  properties return.  This was necessitated that in view of  the  fact  that  in  April,  2011,  a  property  which  was  purchased  from  Lucknow  Development  Authority  by  taking a loan, was disposed off and the proceeds of the  disposal  were received as refund being given by the  Lucknow Development Authority, a government body.

That this was forwarded to the Additional Director  thorough proper channel  and it  is  reliably learnt that  the  same  is  in  the  process  being  sent  even  to  the  Director,  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation,  on  my  request.

Page 18

18

7. It is submitted that on 05.05.2011, there has been  an attempt to intimidate the applicant after hearing of  the  2G  Spectrum  case  was  concluded  before  this  Hon’ble  Court.   The  applicant  has  received  a  letter  purported  to  be  sent  by  the  respondent  No.3,  Shri  Subodh  Jain,  which  contain  wielded  threat  to  start  a  campaign  against  the  applicant  with  a  view  to  intimidate  and,  thus,  interfered  in  the  ongoing  investigations against the Sahara  Group companies in  the 2G Spectrum case.

On 05.05.2011, a copy of the said letter has been  delivered by hand at the office of the applicant and at  15.43, the same is received on FAX of the Dy. Director,  Directorate of Enforcement, copies thereof are annexed  herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-F (COLLY).

8. The  response  to  the  queries  raised  is  being  produced in  a sealed cover  together  with documents  supporting the same for perusal of this Hon’ble Court.  The only purpose of producing it in a sealed cover is to  see  such  future  intimidation  to  torpedo  the  ongoing  investigation  does  not  take  place.    The  applicant  respectively declares before this Hon’ble Court that he  is  ready  and  willing  to  file  an  affidavit  of  these  disclosures before this Hon’ble Court.

9. The petitioner applicant respectfully submit that it  is,  thus,  clear  that  only  with  a  view to  dissuade the  petitioner, who is the Investigating Officer, to carry the  investigation in the right direction against the Sahara  Group, the respondents, and more particularly in the 2G  Spectrum case, that the respondents have attempted  to intimidate which is nothing sort of contempt of this  Hon’ble  Court  since  not  only  the  investigation  is  monitored by this Hon’ble Court, but, this Hon’ble Court  has  given  directions  as  contained  in  their  lordship’s  judgment dated 16.12.2010 and 16.03.2011, which are

Page 19

19

being  carried  out  by  the  applicant  in  the  matter  of  investigation of 2G Spectrum case.

10. It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  this  attempt  by  the respondents to intimidate the applicant, who is the  Investigating Officer is clearly an attempt to interfere or  an attempt which tends to interfere with or obstruct or  tends to obstruct  the administration of  justice and is  thus a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section  2(c)  of  the  Contempt  of  Court  Act,  1971.     It  is  submitted  that  this  is  an  attack  on  the  investigating  officer carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble Court  in  his  way  to  obstruct  the  course  of  justice  by  preventing  the  petitioner,  who  is  the  Investigating  Officer, from carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble  Court.

11. That  this  conduct  is  intended  to  impeach,  embarrass and obstruct the applicant in the discharge  of his duties and carrying out directions of this Hon’ble  Court.  It is respectfully submitted that it is expected  out  of  the  applicant  that  he  is  able  to  conduct  the  investigation free from any outside interference and the  present  letter  dated  05.05.2011  intending  to  cause  embarrassment to the applicant and detract him from  the  ongoing  investigation  is  clearly  an  act  of  interference  that  would  jeopardize  the  ongoing  investigation  and  thus  hamper  the  petitioner  from  carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble Court.

12 That this communication is intended to influence  the petitioner publically and, thus, target him with an  intention  that  the  petitioner  may  not  carry  on  the  ongoing  2G  Spectrum  investigation  as  well  as  other  investigations against the Sahara Group.”

Page 20

20

17. We are of the view that if the allegations raised against the  

contemnors are accepted, then we have to conclude prima facie  

that there has been an attempt by the respondents to interfere  

with an investigation undertaken by the petitioner which is being  

monitored by this Court.  The petitioner has stated that he has  

also  filed a  complaint  of  violation under  the  Foreign Exchange  

Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) to the extent of Rs.4600 Crores  

against five more companies including M/s S-Tel and he is in the  

process of filing five complaints involving an amount of Rs.1800  

Crores under the FEMA, 1999 and is also in the process of issuing  

an order of attachment as contemplated under the Prevention of  

Money Laundering Act, 2002.

18. We  may  point  out  that  the  allegations  raised  by  the  

petitioner in the contempt petition are of very serious nature and,  

if proved, would amount to interference with the administration of  

justice, especially in a court monitored investigation.  In a court  

monitored investigation, if the Officer who is entrusted with the  

task of carrying on that investigation is experiencing any threat or  

pressure from any quarters, he is duty bound to report the same

Page 21

21

to  the court  monitoring the investigation.    The Officer  should  

have the freedom to carry on his duty entrusted, without any fear  

or pressure from any quarters.   The petitioner has invoked Article  

129 and Article 142 to apprise this  Court  of  the difficulties he  

faces while carrying on a court monitored investigation.    

19. Let us examine the extent of the power conferred on this  

Court  under  Article  129  of  the  Constitution,  which  reads  as  

follows:

“Article 129.   Supreme  Court  to  be  a  court  of  record – The Supreme Court shall be a court of record  and shall have all the powers of such a court including  the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

20. We are of the view that the Courts, if they are to serve the  

purpose  of  administering  the  justice,  must  have  the  power  to  

secure  obedience  to  the  orders  passed  by  it  to  prevent  

interference with its  proceedings.   Law is  well  settled that  the  

powers  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  contempt  matters  are  not  

confined merely to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act  

and the Rules framed thereunder.  Law of Contempt, as is often  

said, is only one of the many ways in which the due process of

Page 22

22

law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to  

further  the  cause of  justice.   This  Court  has  plenary  power  to  

punish any person for contempt of court and for that purpose it  

may require any person to be present in Court in the manner it  

considers  appropriate  to  the  facts  of  the  case.   This  Court  in  

Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi   

v. State of Gujarat and others (1991) 4 SCC 406, examined at  

depth the scope of Article 129 of the Constitution and stated as  

follows:

“The power  of  the Supreme Court  and the High  Court being the Courts of Record as embodied under  Articles 129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted  and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the  provisions  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act.    Their  inherent power is elastic, unfettered and not subjected  to any limit.  The power conferred upon the Supreme  Court and the High Court, being Courts of Record under  Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is  an  inherent  power  and  the  jurisdiction  vested  is  a  special  one  not  derived  from  any  other  statute  but  derived  only  from  Articles  129  and  215  of  the  Constitution of India and therefore the constitutionally  vested  right  cannot  be  either  abridged  by  any  legislation or abrogated or cut down.  Nor can they be  controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision  of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules.   The  caution  that  has  to  be  observed  in  exercising  this  inherent  power  by  summary  procedure  is  that  the  power should be used sparingly, that the procedure to  be  followed  should  be  fair  and  that  the  contemnor

Page 23

23

should be made aware of the charge against him and  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  defend  himself….  Entry  77 of  List  1,  Schedule  7  read with  Article  246  confers  power  on  the  Parliament  to  enact  law  with  respect  to  the  Constitution,  organization,  jurisdiction  and  powers  of  the  Supreme  Court  including  the  contempt of the Supreme Court.  The Parliament is thus  competent  to  enact  a  law  relating  to  the  powers  of  Supreme Court with regard to ‘contempt of itself’ such  a law may prescribe procedure to be followed and it  may  also  prescribe  the  maximum  punishment  which  could be awarded and it may provide for appeal and for  other  matters.   But  the  Central  Legislature  has  no  legislative  competence  to  abridge  or  extinguish  the  jurisdiction or power conferred on the Supreme Court  under Article 129 of the Constitution.  ……….”

21. This Court, again, in I. Manilal Singh v.  Dr. H. Borobabu  

Singh and another (1994) Suppl. (1) SCC 718 has delineated  

the  plenary  powers  of  this  Court  and  stated  that  the  power  

conferred on this Court under Article 129 is a constitutional power  

which  cannot  be  circumscribed  or  delineated  either  by  the  

Contempt of Courts Act,  1971   or Rules or even the Rules to  

Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975,  

framed in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Contempt of  

Court Act, 1971, read with Article 145 of the Constitution of India.

Page 24

24

22. We are of the view that, assuming, there has not been any  

proper compliance of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts  

Act, 1971, as contended by the learned senior counsels for the  

respondents, that would not deter or take away the constitutional  

powers  conferred  on  this  Court  under  Article  129  of  the  

Constitution of  India to  examine,  whether,  there has been any  

attempt by anybody to interfere with an investigation, which is  

being monitored by this Court.  The jurisdiction of the Supreme  

Court under Article 129 of the Constitution is independent of the  

Contempt of Courts Act and the powers conferred under Article  

129 of the Constitution cannot be denuded, restricted or limited  

by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

23. Article 142 of the Constitution also confers powers on this  

Court  to  pass  such  orders  as  is  necessary  for  doing  complete  

justice in any cause or matter pending before it.  The said Article  

142 reads as under:

“Article 142.  Enforcement of decrees and orders  of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.  (  1  )  The  Supreme  Court  in  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order  as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause  or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed

Page 25

25

or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the  territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed  by  or  under  any  law  made  by  Parliament  and,  until  provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as  the President may by order prescribe  (2)  Subject to the provisions of any law made in this  behalf  by  Parliament,  the  Supreme  Court  shall,  as  respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and  every  power  to  make  any  order  for  the  purpose  of  securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or  production of  any documents,  or  the investigation or  punishment of any contempt of itself.”

24. Article 142 is conceived to meet situations which cannot be  

effectively and appropriately tackled by existing provisions of law.  

In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.

(P) Ltd. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622, this Court has held that  

the very fact that the power is conferred only upon the Supreme  

Court, and on no one else, is itself an assurance that it will be  

used with due restraint and circumspection; keeping in view the  

ultimate object of doing complete justice between parties and the  

Court’s  power  to  do  complete  justice  is  not  confined  by  any  

statutory provision.

25. We may indicate that the petitioner has  inter alia  invoked  

the  jurisdiction  and  power  conferred  on  this  Court  under  the

Page 26

26

above-mentioned constitutional provisions and hence the consent  

of  the  Attorney  General  is  not  necessary.   Petitioner  is  only  

expected  to  bring  to  notice  of  this  Court  the  problems  he  

confronts with while carrying on a court monitored investigation  

and it is the duty and obligation of this Court to see, rather than  

the  petitioner,  that  nobody puts  any  pressure  or  threat  on  an  

Officer entrusted with the duty to investigate a court monitored  

criminal investigation.   Any interference, by anybody, to scuttle a  

court  monitored investigation would amount  to  interfering with  

the  administration  of  justice.   Courts,  if  they  are  to  serve  the  

cause of justice, must have the power to secure obedience to its  

orders  to  prevent  interference  with  the  proceedings  and  to  

protect the reputation of the legal system, its components and its  

personnel,  who  on  its  behest  carry  on  a  court  monitored  

investigation.  The court is duty bound to protect the dignity and  

authority  of  this  Court,  at  any  cost,  or  else,  the  entire  

administration of justice will crumble and law and order would be  

a casualty.    

Page 27

27

26. We are, therefore, of the view that the petition filed under  

the above mentioned provisions is perfectly maintainable and this  

Court has got a constitutional obligation to examine the truth of  

the allegations as to whether the respondents are attempting to  

derail  the investigation which is being monitored by this Court.  

We, therefore, issue notice to the respondents to show cause why  

proceedings be not initiated against them for interfering with the  

court monitored criminal investigation.

…………………………J. (G.S. Singhvi)

…………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi, December 9, 2013.