REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4003 OF 2019  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.  24177 of 2017)

SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI …….APPELLANTS  ASTHAN TAPOVAN MANDIR & ANR.   

VERSUS  

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.        ….…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Hemant Gupta, J.

The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court

of  Jharkhand  at  Ranchi  on  07.06.2017  directing  the  Central  Bureau  of

Investigation  to  investigate  and  to  take  appropriate  action  at  the  earliest  and

conclude the investigations preferably within six months. The High Court held as

under:-

“……This Court is of prima facie view that land of the deity could not have been transferred in any case. This large scale illegality needs to be enquired into. Now the question is, who will do so? The land and trust which is involved in this case is of Ranchi. Allegation is against the Government  and  the  Board.  Board  consists  of

1

Government functionaries. In this case, another issue is illegally  sanctioning  of  map  by  Government  Officials. We find, as submitted by the petitioner that in one Public Interest Litigation being WP(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 (Har Narain Lakhotia Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) this Court  directed  the  CBI  to  enquire/investigate  the criminality part in giving such sanction in respect of many buildings of Ranchi. The said order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is also one of such case, which needs investigation.

16. On this background, this Court feels that this matter be also entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for  investigating  the  criminality  part.  This  would  also include the aspects and the intent involved in creation of Trust Deed dated 20.9.2005, transfer/conversion of land, permission  of  maps  and  all  other  incidental  issues involved.”

2. The said directions were issued finding that the property of  Deity Shree

Shree  Ram Janki  Ji  Asthan Tapowan Mandir1 at  Ranchi  has  been transferred

against  the  mandate  of  the  Trust  Deed  created  by  the  author  of  the  Trust  to

establish Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust2 on 25.02.1948. The said Trust

was  reconstituted  on  12.05.1987  by  virtue  of  registered  deed.  Still  further,  by

another deed dated 20.09.2005, there was again reconstitution of the Trust.

3. The  High  Court  entertained  the  Public  Interest  Litigation  preferred  by

Respondent No. 8, and held that there is no provision in the original Trust Deed to

transfer/sale of the property of the Deity but with ulterior motive, new Trust Deed

was prepared in the year 2005 to usurp the property of the Deity and to facilitate

illegal transfer of land of the Deity.   

4. The directions issued by the High Court  are subject matter of  challenge

before this Court by the Trust and by Pujari of the Mandir. The argument is that

there is provision to develop and transfer the property of the Deity. Some of the

1 Mandir 2 Trust

2

properties of the Trust were being illegally encroached by local inhabitants and for

better  return  and  to  increase  the  funds,  the  properties  were  transferred.  The

appropriate approvals have been obtained from Bihar State Board of Religious

Trust and that the learned Judicial Commissioner has granted approval of transfer

of immovable property.

5. The High Court  found that properties were endowed to the Deity by the

Trust Deed of 1948 and that the Trustees became custodian of the same. The

subsequent  Trust  Deed  of  1987  again  prohibits  the  Trustees  from  selling  or

transferring or settling a land of the Mandir or Deity. The Trust Deed of 1948 and

that of 1987 were authored by Mahant Shri Janki Jiwan Sharan but subsequently

on 20.09.2005 a new Trust Deed has been created. Mahant Shri  Ram Sharan

Dass registered the said Trust Deed though the founder was Late Janki Jiwan

Sharan. The said Trust Deed has a clause by which landed property can be sold.

6. The  High  Court  found  that  the  permission  of  Jharkhand  State  Hindu

Religious  Trust  Board  granted  in  the  year  2006  was  based  upon  permission

granted  by  Bihar  State  Board  of  Religious  Trust  in  the  year  1994  which  was

obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.  

7. The writ petitioner has invoked the Public Interest Jurisdiction of the High

Court, inter-alia claiming the following reliefs:-

“(i) For  issuance  of  an  appropriate  writ(s)/order  (s)/ direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to conduct an inquiry preferably by an  Agency  other  than  the  Agency  of  the  State  in  the matter of illegal transfer of property belonging to Sri Ram Janki  Tapowan  Mandir  Trust  since  the  substantial properties of the trust has been misappropriated by the members of the Trust in connivance with the government officials for sale of land belonging to the Trust as well as for construction of building over the land considering the fact  that  the  valuable  property  of  the  Trust  has  been

3

illegally transferred to the private persons who have the support of the most of the higher authorities of the State.”

8. The  Public  Interest  Litigation  was  filed  by  Respondent  No.  8  projecting

himself as a responsible and vigilant citizen of the Country and being a Hindu by

faith, therefore, as under pious responsibility to protect the interest of the Deity as

per  his  faith.  The  Respondent  No.  8  has  not  lodged  any  report  before  the

concerned police station making grievance of any one of the facts stated in the writ

petition so as to initiate the process of investigations under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19733. The writ petitioner has not made any grievance to any public

authority in respect of the alleged transfers by the Trustees as well.

9. The  High  Court  has  passed  an  order  directing  investigation  by  Central

Bureau  of  Investigation  by  casually  returning  a  finding  that  permission  was

obtained by the Trust by misrepresentation and fraud. The High Court was again

not careful to return findings on the disputed questions of fact and that too in a

public interest writ petition.  

10. The vesting of the property in Deity is a religious endowment but has no

public element in it, the grievance of which can be made in a writ petition filed in

the public interest.  We do not say any more than the fact that the High Court

should have refrained from entertaining such Public Interest Litigation in respect of

alleged wrongful sale of property of the religious bodies.

11. Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 19504 gives power of

transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after taking previous sanction

from the Board.  Such permission is to convert  any property of  the Trust after

approval of the District Judge as provided by Section 28 (j) of the Act.  The stand

3 Code 4 Act

4

of the appellants is that they have obtained approval as contemplated by the Act

and such approval has been sought as an act of prudent management.  Therefore,

the High Court was not justified in creating a suspicion on an act of transferring the

land of the Deity.  

12.  The question  as  to  whether  the  High Court  could  direct  CBI  to  take over

investigation  in  the  facts  of  the  present  case  needs  to  be  examined.  The

Constitution Bench in its judgment reported as State of West Bengal and Others

v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others5

has examined the question as to the rights of CBI to investigate a criminal offence

in  a  State  without  its  consent.  This  Court  examined  Entry  2  of  List  II  of  VII

Schedule of the Constitution. It was held that the legislative power of the Union to

provide for the regular police force of one State to exercise power and jurisdiction

in  any  area  outside  the  State  can  only  be  exercised  with  the  consent  of  the

Government of that particular State in which such area is situated. The Court held

that though the Court had wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the

Constitution,  but  it  must  bear  in  mind  certain  self-imposed  limitations  on  the

exercise  of  these  constitutional  powers.  This  extraordinary  power  must  be

exercised sparingly,  cautiously  and in  exceptional  situations where  it  becomes

necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the

incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order is

necessary  for  doing  complete  justice  and  enforcing  fundamental  rights.  The

relevant extract from the judgment reads as under:-

“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to  emphasise  that  despite  wide  powers  conferred  by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed

5 (2010) 3 SCC 571

5

limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires  great  caution  in  its  exercise.  Insofar  as  the question  of  issuing  a  direction  to  CBI  to  conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that  such an order  is  not  to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some  allegations  against  the  local  police.  This extraordinary  power  must  be  exercised  sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary  to  provide credibility  and instil  confidence  in investigations  or  where  the  incident  may  have  national and  international  ramifications  or  where  such  an  order may  be  necessary  for  doing  complete  justice  and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded  with  a  large  number  of  cases  and  with  limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”

13. The  Court  approved  earlier  two  Judge  Bench  Judgment  reported  as

Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v.

Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another6 wherein it was held that the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution can direct inquiry to be conducted by CBI but such

power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to

a prima facie conclusion that there is need for such inquiry. It was held that it is not

sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. The Court also held that the right

to live under Article 21 include the right of a person to live without being hounded

by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living

as a law-abiding citizen. The relevant extracts from the judgment read as under:-

“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under  Article  226  to  direct  an  inquiry  by  CBI,  the  said power  can  be  exercised  only  in  cases  where  there  is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have

6 (2002) 5 SCC 521

6

such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need  for  the  High  Court  on  consideration  of  such pleadings  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is  a  requirement  which  is  clearly  deducible  from  the judgment of  this  Court  in  the case of Common Cause7. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: (SCC p. 750, para 174)

“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI  to  investigate  ‘any  other  offence’  is  wholly erroneous  and  cannot  be  sustained.  Obviously, direction for  investigation can be given only if  an offence  is,  prima  facie,  found  to  have  been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established,  but  a  direction  to  CBI  to  investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIBERTY’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the  concept  of  ‘LIFE’  has  been  explained  in  a manner which has infused ‘LIFE’ into the letters of Article 21.”

6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct  an inquiry  by  CBI  against  a  person can only  be done if the High Court after considering the material on record  comes  to  a  conclusion  that  such  material  does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter  of  routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that  the  High  Court  without  coming  to  a  definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of “ifs” and “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause.”

7 (1999) 6 SCC 667

7

14. It is the said findings, which were approved specifically by the Constitution

Bench in State of West Bengal (supra) holding as under:-

“71. In Minor  Irrigation  &  Rural  Engg.  Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo  Ram  Arya this  Court  had  said  that  an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court,  after  considering the material  on record,  comes to a conclusion that  such material  does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.”

15. A three Judge Bench Judgment reported as Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of

Kerala and Others8 held that the extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts

in directing CBI to conduct  investigation in a case must be exercised rarely in

exceptional  circumstances,  especially,  when  there  is  lack  of  confidence  in  the

investigating agency or in the national interest. This Court held as under:-

“10. Taking into account the law laid down by this Court in Committee  for  Protection  of  Democratic  Rights 9, direction  for  investigation  by  CBI  was  declined  by  this Court  in K.  Saravanan  Karuppasamy v. State  of T.N.10 and Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha11.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in the light of the above principles, we are of the view that the case in hand does not entail a direction for transferring the investigation from the State police/special team  of  State  police  officers  to  CBI.  The  facts  and circumstances  in  which  the  offence  is  alleged  to  have been  committed  can  be  better  investigated  into  by  the State  police.  However,  having  regard  to  the  nature  of allegations  levelled  by  the  petitioner,  we  deem  it appropriate to direct  the State of  Kerala to constitute a special  team of police officers headed by an officer  not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter.”

8 (2016) 7 SCC 597 9 State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra) 10 (2014) 10 SCC 406 11 (2014) 11 SCC 527

8

16. In another  three Judge Bench Judgment reported as  K.V. Rajendran v.

Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others12, it was

held  that  the  Court  could  exercise  its  constitutional  powers  for  transferring  an

investigation  from  the  State  investigating  agency  to  any  other  independent

investigating agency only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The Court gave

instances such as where high officials  of  State authorities are involved,  or  the

accusation itself  is  against  the top officials of  the investigating agency thereby

allowing  them  to  influence  the  investigation,  and  to  instil  confidence  in  the

investigation.

17. In another two Judge Bench Judgment reported as Bimal Gurung v. Union

of India13 , this Court held that the power of transferring such investigation must be

in rare and exceptional cases where the Court finds it necessary in order to do

justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind. It was held

as under:-

“29. The law is thus well settled that power of transferring investigation  to  other  investigating  agency  must  be exercised in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds  it  necessary  in  order  to  do  justice  between  the parties to instil  confidence in the public mind, or where investigation  by  the  State  Police  lacks  credibility.  Such power has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. In K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, this Court has noted few  circumstances  where  the  Court  could  exercise  its constitutional power to transfer of investigation from State Police  to CBI  such as:  (i)  where high officials  of  State authorities are involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is  against  the  top  officials  of  the  investigating  agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, or (iii) where  investigation  prima  facie  is  found  to  be tainted/biased.”

12 (2013) 12 SCC 480 13 (2018) 15 SCC 480

9

18. In an earlier two Judge Bench Judgment reported as T.C. Thangaraj v. V.

Engammal and Others14,  this Court  found that merely because complaint was

against  the police officer,  the investigations should not  be entrusted to Central

Bureau of Investigation. The Court held as under:-

“8. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, cited a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)15  in which this Court directed CBI to register a case and investigate into the complaint of the appellant because the complaint was against the police officer and the Court was of the view that the interest of justice would be better served if  the case  is  registered  and  investigated  by  an  independent agency like CBI.

9. The  decision  of  the  two-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) will have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by the Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in State  of W.B. v. Committee  for  Protection  of  Democratic  Rights. The  Constitution  Bench  has  considered  at  length  the power of the High Court to direct investigation by CBI into a  cognizable  offence  alleged  to  have  been  committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the  view  that  the  High  Court  has  wide  powers  under Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations.

*** *** *** 11. In  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  has  not exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution  and  directed  CBI  to  investigate  into  the complaint  with  a  view  to  protect  the  complainant's personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to enforce her fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power under  Section  482  CrPC on  a  grievance  made by  the complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan  transaction  of  Rs  3  lakhs  by  the  three  accused persons,  was  not  being  investigated  properly  because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of Police. In our  considered  view,  this  was  not  one  of  those exceptional situations calling for exercise of extraordinary

14 (2011) 12 SCC 328 15 (2006) 2 SCC 677

10

power of  the High Court  to  direct  investigation  into the complaint  by  CBI.  If  the  High  Court  found  that  the investigation  was  not  being  completed  because  P. Kalaikathiravan,  an Inspector of  Police,  was one of  the accused persons, the High Court should have directed the Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer  senior  in  rank  to  the  Inspector  of  Police  under Section 154(3) CrPC and not to CBI.

12. It  should  also  be  noted  that  Section  156(3)  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate  on  the  police  performing  their  duties  and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.16)”

19. We find that the finding recorded by the High Court that the Deity could not

transfer its land in any case is not tenable. The appellant relies upon statutory

provisions in support of its stand to transfer of land.  The sweeping remarks that

the  allegations  are  against  the  Government  and  the  Board  which  consist  of

Government functionaries; therefore, the matter requires to be investigated by CBI

are wholly untenable and such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or

the Board should not have been made.  The functioning in the Government is by

different  Officers  and  the  working  of  the  Executive  has  inbuilt  checks  and

balances.   Therefore,  merely  because,  permission  has  been  granted  by  a

functionary of the State Government will not disclose a criminal offence.  The High

Court has thus travelled much beyond its jurisdiction in directing investigations by

CBI in a matter of sale of property of the Deity.  Still further,  the High Court has

issued directions without their being any complaint to the local police in respect of

the property of the religious Trust.

16 (2008) 2 SCC 409

11

20. It may be kept in mind that the public order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry

2) is a State subject falling in List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution. It is a

primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to investigate

all offences which are committed within its jurisdiction. The investigations can be

entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation on satisfaction of the conditions as

specified therein only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in State of West

Bengal (supra) case. Such power cannot and should not be exercised in a routine

manner without examining the complexities, nature of offence and some time the

tardy progress in the investigations involving high officials of the State investigating

agency itself.  

21. We find that the High Court has completely misdirected itself in directing the

Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation in a matter which relates

to the rights of the trustees to sell property of a religious Trust or Deity, giving rise

to civil dispute.

22. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the  High Court is

set aside and the writ petition is thus dismissed.

..….…………………………………….J. [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]

.…………………………………………J.   [Hemant Gupta]

New Delhi May 1, 2019.

12