Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.548 OF 2012

Shahid Balwa    …Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others …Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.550, 551, 552 OF 2012, 17 of 2013, and

I.A. Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.10660 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.  We are, in these cases, called upon to examine the question  

whether  two  orders  passed  by  this  Court  on  11.04.2011  and  

09.11.2012  in  Civil  Appeal  No.10660  of  2010,  in  exercise  of  

powers conferred on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the

Page 2

2

Constitution  of  India,  while  monitoring  the  investigation  of  2G  

related  cases,  are  liable  to  be  recalled,  de  hors  the  rights  

guaranteed to  the  Petitioners  to  invoke  the  jurisdiction  of  this  

Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India,  if  

aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with  

2G Spectrum case.

2. Civil  Appeal  No.10660  of  2010,  in  which  the  above-

mentioned orders have been passed, was filed under Article 136  

of the Constitution of India by special leave, praying for a Court  

monitored  investigation  by  the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  

(CBI) or by a Special Investigating Team into what was described  

as the 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to investigate  

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

of Telecommunications (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

Page 3

3

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 PC  

Act against a former Cabinet Minister and others.

3. Before  this  Court  parties  produced  large  number  of  

documents,  including  the  Performance  Audit  Report  (Draft  and  

Final) prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India  

(CAG) on the issue of licence and allocation of 2G Spectrum by  

DoT, Ministry of Communications and Information and Technology  

for the period from 2003-2004 to 2009-2010.  Report of the CAG,  

was submitted to the President of India, as per Article 151 of the  

Constitution of  India.   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  enquiry  report  to  the  Director,  CBI  to  investigate  into  the  

matter to establish the criminal conspiracy in the allocation of 2G

Page 4

4

Spectrum  under  UASL  policy  of  DoT  and  to  bring  to  book  all  

wrongdoers.

4. After taking into consideration of all those factors, including  

the report of the CVC as well as the findings recorded by the CAG,  

this Court agreed for a Court monitored investigation and held as  

follows:

“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 and others passed in other  cases, agreed for a Court monitored investigation.”

Page 5

5

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

ordinated  investigation  by  the  CBI  and  the  Enforcement  

Directorate,  gave  the  following  directions  vide  its  order  dated  

16.12.2010:

(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  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,

Page 6

6

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.

(v)    The  Directorate  of  Enforcement/  concerned  agencies  of  the  Income  Tax  Department  shall

Page 7

7

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.”

6. CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to apprise  

this Court of the various stages of investigation 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.

Page 8

8

7. Learned Attorney General of India, it was pointed out, had  

written to the Law Minister on the issue of creation of separate  

Special Court for dealing with the cases relating to 2G Scam and,  

for the said purpose, the Law Minister, in turn, had written to the  

Chief  Justice  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  seeking  nomination  of  a  

Special  Court  for  the said  purpose.   Learned Attorney  General  

submitted  before  this  Court  on  16.03.2011  that  the  Registrar  

General of the High Court of Delhi had conveyed its decision to  

nominate 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 dated 28.03.2011 were published in the Gazette  

of India Extraordinary on Monday, the 28th March, 2011.  

Page 9

9

8. The CBI submitted before this Court on 01.04.2011 that a  

notification had been issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Police  

Establishment  Act  by  the  State  Government  for  entrusting  the  

case relating to death of Sadiq Batcha to the CBI and the CBI had  

indicated that it  had no objection to take up the investigation.  

The CBI  also  submitted before this  Court  that  a  Special  Public  

Prosecutor  had  to  be  appointed  to  lead  and  supervise  the  

prosecution of the case relating to the 2G Scam for which the CBI  

had suggested the name of Shri U.U. Lalit, senior advocate of this  

Court.

9. The CBI,  after  completion of the investigation in the main  

case,  noticed  the  commission  of  various  other  offences  during  

2007-09 punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC  

against the accused persons, namely, Shri A. Raja and others and  

the  following  substantive  offences  were  stated  to  have  been  

made out against the following accused persons:

“a)  Sh. A. Raja, then MOC&IT – the offence punishable u/s  420, 468, 471 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

Page 10

10

b)   Sh.  Siddartha Behura,  then Secretary,  Department of  Telecom- the offence punishable u/w 420 IPC & 13(2)  r/w  13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

c)   Sh.  R.K.  Chandolia,  then  PS  to  MOC&IT-  the  offence  punishable u/s 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act.

d)    Sh. Shahid Usman Balwa, Director, M/s Swan Telecom  Pvt. Ltd.; Sh. Vinod Goenka, Director, M/s Swan Telecom Pvt.  Ltd. and M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (now M/s Etisalat DB  Telecom Pvt. Ltd) through its Director – offences punishable  u/s 420/468/471 IPC.

e)    Sh. Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Ltd.  and M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. through its  Director –offences punishable u/s 420 IPC.

f)    Sh. Gautam Doshi,  Group Managing Director,  Reliance  ADA Group, Sh. Hari Nair, Senior Vice President of Reliance  ADA Group & Sh. Surendra Pipara, Senior Vice President of  Reliance ADA Group & M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. through its  Director  –  offences  punishable  under  section 109 r/w  420  IPC.”

10. The  CBI,  on  the  basis  of  the  investigation  conducted,  

submitted  a  charge-sheet  against  the  above-mentioned  

persons/companies  before  a  Special  Judge  on  02.04.2011  and

Page 11

11

Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on the  

same day.

11. This Court undertook the monitoring of the investigation in  

view of the prayers made by the appellants and the request made  

by the prosecution agency and the Government of India, having  

regard to the larger public interest involved and the necessity of a  

proper  investigation  and  also  with  the  ultimate  object  of  

unearthing the crime.

12. Counsel appearing for the CBI suggested to this Court, on  

11.4.2011, the name of Shri U.U. Lalit, senior advocate, for the  

conduct of the criminal prosecution in the case on behalf of the  

CBI as well as the Directorate of Enforcement and the Court on  

that date inter alia ordered as follows:

“We  also  make  it  clear  that  any  objection  about  appointment  of  Special  Public  Prosecutor  or  his  assistant  advocates  or  any  prayer  for  staying  or  impeding the progress of the Trial  can be made only  before this Court and no other Court shall entertain the  same.  The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.

Page 12

12

All these directions are given by this Court in exercise  of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of  the  Constitution  and in  the  interest  of  holding  a  fair  prosecution of the case.”

13. We  found,  in  spite  of  the  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  

11.04.2011 that no Court should entertain any prayer for staying  

or  impeding  the  progress  of  the  trial,  large  number  of  writ  

petitions were seen filed before the Delhi High Court praying for  

stay of the trial proceedings on one or the other ground.  The CBI  

noticing that entertaining of those cases would violate the order  

passed by this Court on 11.04.2011, filed an application before  

this Court for summoning the records of Writ Petition (Criminal)  

No.1587 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1588 of 2012, Writ  

Petition (Criminal) No.913 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.111  

of  2012,  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.207  of  2012,  Writ  Petition  

(Criminal)  No.1478 of 2012,  Writ  Petition (Criminal)  No.1751 of  

2012,  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.  1752  of  2012,  Writ  Petition  

(Criminal)  No.  1754 of  2012,  Writ  Petition (Criminal)  No.206 of  

2012,  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.  159  of  2012,  Writ  Petition  

(Criminal)  No.  208  of  2012,  Criminal  M.C.  No.  4197  of  2011,

Page 13

13

Criminal  M.C.  No.67 of 2012,  Writ  Petition (Criminal)  No.129 of  

2012,  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.656  of  2012,  Criminal  M.C.  

No.4199  of  2011,  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.467  of  2012  and  

Criminal  M.C.  No.1060  of  2012  pending  before  the  Delhi  High  

Court and also prayed for  stay of all  the proceedings of these  

cases.   

14. This Court felt  entertaining those cases by the Delhi  High  

Court, at this stage, would violate the order passed by this Court  

on  11.4.2011,  passed  an  order  on  09.11.2012  staying  those  

proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court.

15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, appearing for  

the  petitioner  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.548  of  2012,  prayed  for  

recalling orders dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 on the ground  

that  those  orders  would  violate  the  rights  guaranteed  to  the  

petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and  

227  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  moving  the  High  Court.  

Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  remedy,  if  at  all,  

available  under  Article 32 is  limited to  safeguarding the rights  

guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution while the remedies

Page 14

14

available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have a  

wider scope, which cannot be taken away by the impugned orders  

passed by this Court while monitoring the 2G Scam.   

16. Learned senior  counsel  also  submitted that  the impugned  

orders have the effect of taking away the power of the Court in  

granting  reasonable  adjournments  under  Section  309  of  the  

Cr.P.C.  and  submitted  neither  sub-section  (4)  of  Section  4  nor  

Section  19(3)  of  the  PC  Act  can  take  away  that  right  of  the  

petitioners,  but has been effectively curtailed by the impugned  

orders  passed  by  this  Court.   Learned  senior  counsel  also  

submitted that this Court  exercising powers under Articles 136  

and 142 of the Constitution, has the power to only monitor the  

investigation and once the investigation is over and charge-sheet  

has been filed, this Court should leave the matter to the trial court  

safeguarding the rights of parties in questioning the correctness  

or otherwise of the orders passed by the trial Court in appropriate  

Forums.   Reference was made to the decision of  this  Court  in  

Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) and Another v. Union of  

Page 15

15

India and others (2006) 6 SCC 613 and  Vineet Narain and  

Others v. Union of India and Another (1996) 2 SCC 199.

17. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, submitted that  

right to fair trial is a right guaranteed to the parties under Articles  

14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned order has  

the effect of negating those rights by shutting out all remedies  

available  to  the  parties  under  Articles  226  and  227  of  the  

Constitution  of  India  to  move  the  High  Court.  Learned  senior  

counsel  placed reliance on the Judgment  of  this  Court  in  A.R.  

Antulay v.  R.S.  Nayak and another (1988)  2  SCC 602 and  

submitted that in appropriate cases this Court has got the power  

to recall its earlier order in the interest of justice, if it is satisfied  

that  its  directions  will  result  in  the deprivation of  fundamental  

rights guaranteed to the citizens or any other legal rights.  Placing  

reliance on the Judgment of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v.  

Union  of  India  and  others (1997)  3  SCC  261  and Shalini  

Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010)  

8  SCC  600,  learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  rights  

conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Page 16

16

are the basic structure of the Constitution and the same cannot  

be taken away by exercising powers under Article 136 and 142 of  

the Constitution of India.

18. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, submitted that the  

power of the Court to monitor the criminal investigation should  

stop once the charge-sheet has been filed, leaving the trial court  

to proceed with trial in accordance with the law.   In support of his  

contention reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in  

Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another v.  State of Gujarat and  

others (2011) 12 SCC 302 and the Judgment in Ankul Chandra  

Pradhan v. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 354.

19. Shri  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  

the  CBI,  submitted  that  there  are  no  justifiable  reasons  for  

recalling  the  impugned  orders  since  those  orders  had  been  

passed in the larger public interest and that too based on the  

request made by the Government of India virtually inviting this  

Court’s  intervention for  monitoring the investigation relating to  

2G Scam.    Learned senior counsel referred to the CAG report as  

well as the report sent by the CVC to the CBI and submitted that

Page 17

17

those reports would highlight the magnitude of loss suffered by  

the  public  exchequer,  which  has  been  revealed  by  the  

investigation conducted by the CBI.  Learned senior counsel also  

submitted  that  this  Court  has  undertaken  monitoring  of  the  

investigation due to the involvement of highly placed officers of  

DoT  and  the  then  Union  Minister  for  Telecommunications,  

Members of Parliament, bureaucrats and businessmen.   

20. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court, while  

issuing the orders dated 11.04.2011 or 09.11.2012, has neither  

interfered with the proceedings pending before the Special Court,  

nor attempted to supervise or investigate the trial proceedings.  

On the other hand, this Court only ensured that the progress of  

the trial  be not impeded and the trial  should go on day-to-day  

basis.  Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court has  

reserved its powers to entertain any challenge against the orders  

passed by the Special  Judge under Articles 136,  32 as well  as  

Article 142 of the Constitution and hence, no prejudice is caused  

to the petitioners.

Page 18

18

21. We may, at the very outset, point out that CBI as well as the  

Enforcement Directorate is yet to complete the investigation of  

the cases relating to 2G Scam and the case which is being tried  

by the Special Judge is only one among them, wherein the charge-

sheet  has  been filed  and  the  trial  is  in  progress.   This  Court,  

taking into consideration the width and ambit of the investigation  

which  even  spreads  overseas  and  the  larger  public  interest  

involved, passed the orders impugned, reserving the right of all,  

including the accused persons, to move this Court if their prayer  

would amount to staying or impeding the progress of the trial.  In  

case they have any grievance against the orders passed by the  

Special Judge during trial, they are free to approach this Court so  

that the progress of the trial would not be hampered by indulging  

in  cumbersome  and  time  consuming  proceedings  in  the  other  

Forums, thereby stultifying the preemptory direction given by this  

Court for day-to-day trial.

22.  Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India  

enables this Court to pass such orders, which are necessary for  

doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it

Page 19

19

and,  any  order  so  made,  shall  be  enforceable  throughout  the  

territory  of  India.   Parties,  in  such  a  case,  cannot  invoke  the  

jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India  

or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to interfere with those orders  

passed  by  this  Court,  in  exercise  of  its  constitutional  powers  

conferred  under  Article  136  read  with  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.   Or,  else,  the  parties  will  move  Courts  

inferior  to  this  Court  under  Article  226  or  Article  227  of  the  

Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to defeat the  

very  purpose  and  object  of  the  various  orders  passed  by  this  

Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 136 read  

with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.    

PUBLIC INTEREST:

23. Public  Interest  compelled  this  Court  to  take  up  the  

investigation in 2G related cases in exercise of its powers under  

Article 136 read with Article 142, that too, on a request made by  

the Central Government.  CAG is stated to be the most important  

Officer  under  the Constitution of  India  and his  duty,  being the  

guardian of the public Purse, is to see that not a farthing of it is

Page 20

20

spent without the authority of the Parliament.  Article 149 of the  

Constitution of India empowers the CAG to perform such duties  

and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union  

and the State and Audit plays an important role in the scheme of  

Parliamentary  Financial  Control  and  it  is  also  directed  towards  

discovering  waste,  extravagance  and  disallow  any  expenditure  

violating  the  Constitution,  or  any  Law.   CAG,  in  its  report  

submitted  to  the  President  of  India  under  Article  151  of  the  

Constitution of India, has commented upon the manner in which  

the Unified Access Licences were granted and projected that it  

caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1.76 lac  

crore.     Of  course,  some acrimony had erupted between the  

Central  Government  and  the  CAG’s  estimate  of  loss,  but  it  is  

reported to be substantial.   CVC also conducted an enquiry under  

Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 and noticed grave  

irregularities in the grant of licences.  CVC, on 12.10.2009, had  

forwarded the enquiry report to that effect to the Directorate of  

CBI.   

Page 21

21

24. The  nation  and  the  people  of  this  country  are  seriously  

concerned  with  the  outcome  of  cases  involving  larger  public  

interest, like one concerning 2G and this Court, as the guardian of  

the Constitution, has got the duty and obligation to see that the  

larger public interest and the interest of the nation is preserved  

and protected.  When larger public interest is involved, it is the  

responsibility  of  the  Constitutional  Court  to  assure  judicial  

legitimacy and accountability.    Public interest demands timely  

resolution  of  cases  relating  to  2G  Scam.   Prolonged  litigation  

undermines the public confidence and weakens the democracy  

and rule of law.    

25. The Parliament, in its wisdom, has also noticed the necessity  

of  early  disposal  of  cases  relating  to  bribery  and  corruption.  

Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reflects the  

will of the Parliament that a Special Judge shall hold the trial of an  

offence on day-to-day basis, notwithstanding anything contained  

in the Code of Criminal  Procedure.  Section 19(3)(c)  also states  

that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal  

Procedure,  no  Court  shall  stay  the  proceedings  under  the

Page 22

22

Prevention of Corruption Act on any other ground and no Court  

shall  exercise  the  powers  of  the  revision  in  relation  to  any  

interlocutory order passed in any inquiry,  trial,  appeal or other  

proceedings.  Statutory provisions highlight the imperative need  

to eradicate the evils  of  bribery and corruption.   Larger  public  

interest  should  have  precedence  over  the  prayers  of  the  

petitioners,  especially  when  this  Court  has  safeguarded  their  

rights and given freedom to them to move this Court, either under  

Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India.   Article 139A  

also reflects the larger public interest, which enables this Court to  

transfer certain cases which involve substantial questions of law,  

from one High Court to another or to this Court, in such an event,  

it  cannot  be  contended  that  the  parties  are  deprived  of  their  

rights to adjudicate their grievances under Articles 226, 227 or  

Section 482 Cr.P.C., before the High Court.

COURT MONITORED INVESTIGATION

26. Monitoring  of  criminal  investigation  is  the  function  of  

investigating agency and not  that  of  the Court  –  either  of  the  

superior  Court  or  of  the  trial  Court.   But  unsolved  crimes,

Page 23

23

unsuccessful  prosecution,  unpunished  offenders  and  wrongful  

convictions bring our criminal justice system in disrepute.  Crores  

and crores of tax payers’ money is being spent for investigating  

crimes in our country since every such incident is a crime against  

the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political  

power and influence,  the possibility  of  putting pressure on the  

investigating  agency,  which  is  no  more  independent  in  our  

country,  is  much  more.   Common people  will  be  left  with  the  

feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the  

image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as  

well.  Once investigation fails, Court will face with a fait accompli.  

Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about  

the truth.  Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due  

to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of  

law.

27. More and more demands are now coming before the Courts  

for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by  

influential persons and persons who have political influence, with  

the apprehension that they could derail the investigation.  Courts

Page 24

24

in  public  interest sometime have to take such a course in  the  

larger public interest.  That burden this Court has discharged in  

various cases like Vineet Narayan’s case and Gujarat Communal  

Riot’s case, etc.  This Court has taken the consistent view that  

once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process  

of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for  

that Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the  

matter.  But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have  

already indicated that  charge-sheet has been filed only in  one  

among the various 2G related cases.  This Court, while passing  

the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a  

day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the  

trial proceedings.  

28. We also,  therefore,  find no basis  in  the contention of  the  

petitioners that the orders dated 11.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 have  

the effect of monitoring the trial  proceedings.  No Court,  other  

than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the  

proceedings  pending  before  it.   Order  dated  11.4.2011  only  

facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must

Page 25

25

proceed on a day-to-day basis.   Large backlog of cases in  the  

Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court’s  

system  by  indulging  in  unnecessary  and  fraudulent  litigation,  

thereby  delaying  the  entire  trial  process.   Criminal  justice  

system’s  procedure  guarantees  and  elaborateness  sometimes  

give,  create  openings  for  abusive,  dilatory  tactics  and  confer  

unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their  

advantage.    Longer  the  trial,  witnesses  will  be  unavailable,  

memories  will  fade  and  evidence  will  be  stale.    Taking  into  

consideration all  those aspects,  this  Court  felt  that  it  is  in  the  

larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered.  

Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden  

duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to  

be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress  

of the trial.  Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage,  

so  that  their  innocence  could  be  proved,  rather  than  remain  

enmeshed in criminal trial  for years and unable to get on with  

their lives and business.   

Page 26

26

29. We fail to see how the principle laid down by this Court in  

A.R. Antulay’s case (supra) would apply to the facts of these  

cases.  We have found no error in the orders passed by this Court  

on  11.04.2011  or  on  09.04.2012.   Therefore,  the  question  of  

rectifying any error does not arise.  On the other hand, as we  

have already indicated, the purpose and object of passing those  

orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial, that  

too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not only in the  

various provisions of the PC Act,  1988 but also falls within the  

realm of judicial accountability.

30. We also find no reason to lay down any guidelines as prayed  

for  by the petitioners in a Court monitored investigation.   In a  

Court monitored investigation, as already pointed out the Court is  

not expected to interfere with the trial proceedings.  The conduct  

of the trial  is the business of the trial  judge and not the court  

monitoring  the  investigation.   A  superior  court  exercising  the  

appellate power or  constitutional  power,  if  gives a direction to  

conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a  

specific time by giving direction is not interfering with the trial

Page 27

27

proceedings but only facilitating the speedy trial, which is a facet  

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  That being the factual  

situation in these cases, the principle laid down by this Court in  

Rajiv  Ranjan  Singh  “Lalan”  VI  and  another v.  Union  of  

India and others (2006) 1 SCC 356, Brij Narain Singh v. Adya  

Prasad (2008)  11  SCC  558  and  Ankul  Chandra  Pradhan  

(supra), are not applicable.

31. We, therefore, find no good reason either to frame guidelines  

to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of  

criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed  

by this Court on 11.04.2011 or 09.04.2012.  Writ Petitions lack  

merits and they are accordingly dismissed, so also IA Nos.59, 61,  

63 and 68 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010.

…………………………J. (G.S. Singhvi)

…………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi,

Page 28

28

September 3, 2013