Supreme Court rejected appeals challenging orders restricting appeals/stays in coal block cases to SC only, rejecting violations of Articles 14, 21, and CrPC provisions. SC affirmed right to approach SC under Art 136 and interpreted PCA s.19(3)(c) strictly.
Appeals dismissed; order of July 25, 2014 upheld; election petitions withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 544
A
GIRlSH KUMAR SUNEJA
v.
C.B.l ..
(Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of2017)
B
JULY 13, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
A. K. SIKRI, JJ.J
Constitution of India:
c Art. 136 r/w Art. 142 - Exclusion ofjurisdiction of the High Court in Coal Block jlllocation matters - Supreme Court in the Coal Block Allocation cayes passed order dated 25.07.14 that any prayer which would impede the progress in the investigation/trial of the cases was to be made only to Supreme C01lrt - Special Judge hearing D . criminal cases pertaining to illegal allocation of coal blocks, issued direction to frame charges against the appellant - Challenge to. before High Court - Petition dismissed on the ground of nonmaintainabi!ity in view of the order dated 25. 07.14 - Appeal before Supreme Court to recall or revisit the order dated 25.07.14 on 1he ground that the appellants were denied access to justice - Held: E Such an order was held permissible 11/Art. 136 rlw Art.142, by the Supreme Court in· **Shahid Balwa case, considering the width and ambit of the investigation and also the larger public interest and to ensure that progress in the trial was not hampered - Jn view thereof and the issue having alreac(v been agitated before the Supreme Court Fand negativedinanother case, the order dated 25.07.14 need not be revisited or modified - .Arts. 226, 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
Arts. 226 and 227-,- Order by this Court that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial of the coal block a/location cases to be made only to this Court - Case of the G appellants that order passed by this Court prohibited them from approaching the High Court u/Arts. 226 and 227 - Held: Jurisdiction of High Court u/Arts.226 and 22 7 cannot be curtailed, yet extraordinary situations could arise where it would be advisable for High Court to decline. to interfere - This Court can pass an
H
544
545
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
order that in a certain identified category of cases, the High Court · A ought' not to interfere and this Court would take a decision in the matter in larger public interest. ·
Art. 14 - Equality before law'- Coal block allocation cases treated as a separate class having a separate procedure, thereby denying to them equal protection of the law - Violation of' Art. 14 - Held: it is necessary to treat the coal block i::ases differentially since they form a unique identifiable categmy - Classification is certainly not arbitrary, on the contrary, it is in public interest and for the public good - Classification being identifiable and clear, there is · . no violation of Art. 14.
B
c
Art. 21 - Right to life and liberty - Order by this Court that any prayer for stay or impeding 'the progress in the investigation/ trial of the coal block allocation cases to be made only to this Court, thus, restricted right to life and liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 - Violation of Art. 21 - Held: No procedural safeguard denied to the appellants and it is a complete misnomer to say that any statuto1y D right has been restricted or constricted by a judicial order - Remedies available to the appellants continue to be available to them except that the forum shifted from the High Court to this Court in larger public interest,
E
Arts. 32 and 142 - Order of this Court that any prayer for E stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial of the coal block allocation cases to be made only t~ this Court - Plea that this order deprived appellants of their Nght to' access)1stice - Held: Appellants not denuded of their rights - it. is only' that their rights have been placed in the proper perspective and have been enabled F to exercise their. rights be.fore ~nother ./orum . . · . '· . '
.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ..
-...
ss. 397 and 482 - Right to file a revision petition - Order by this Court that anyprayer.fo'r stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/triiil of ii1e coal block allocation;· caes to be inade G only to this Court and no othei· Court shall ntertain any sucli request - Appellant: case that they have a right to .file a revisi<>n pefi!.!.,oti against orders passed by th Special Ju,d~e; but the order passe{J.by this Court effectively preve'!ts the High CourtJrom ...
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A entertaining any such petition - Held: This does not mean that appellant have no remedy available to them - Order does not prohibit them from approaching this Court u/Art.136 - Jn a way, the forum for ventilating the grievance of the appellants has sh(fied irom the High Court to this Court.
B
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
ss. 19 and 4 - Stay of proceedings - Inherent right of High Court - Plea that order of this Court deprive the High Court of exercising its inherent right to grant stay of proceedings - Held:· Cannot be accepted - To ensure that the trial is concluded at the c earliest not only in the interest of the accused persons but also in public interest, any application intended to stay or impede the trial will be subject to orders of this Court.
s. J 9(3)(c) - Interpretation to s. l 9(3)(c) - Held: Section 1"(3}(c) must be given a very restricted interpretation and not the D over-broad interpretation - It cannot be said that the prohibition against granting a stay of proceedings is not absolute insofar as s. 19(3)(c) is concerned; and that if there is a failure of justice, a stay of proceedings could certainly be granted by the High Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1. In *Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India this Court passed the following order on 11th April, 2011, commonly known as the 2G Spectrum Scam cases that any objection about the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the F 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. 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. The said order came up for consideration before this G Court in **Shahid Balwa. v. Union of 11ldia. While dealing with the submissions made in relation to the said order (submissions, that are similar to those made before this Court) this Court hHd that considering the width and ambit of the investigation .Which could even spread overseas and also considering the larger H public interest, the said order was passed reserving the right of
547
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. .
the accused to move this Court if there is a grievance against the A order passed by the Special Judge during the trial and that this would ensure that progress in the trial is not hampered. Such an order was permissible under the provisions of Article 136 read ·with Article 142 of the Constitution. It was also made clear that the parties cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. so as to ensure compliance with the orders passed by this Court otherwise the very purpose and object of the order would be defeated. It was further held that the order passed only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that it must proceed on a day · to· day basis. It was noted that the backlog of cases is often an C incentive to the litigants to take unfair advantage of the delays and therefore, it was necessary to pass the order dated U1 h April, 2011. 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, D it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to cooperate 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 busin~ss. In view thereof and the issue having already been agitated before this Court and negatived (also in some other case) it is not appropriate to revisit the order of 251 h July, 2014 passed by this Court nor it is appropriate to modify that order. (Para 78-821 [590-G; 591-A-D; 592-D, G-H; 593-A-BJ
B
E
F
*Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 117 ; **Shahid Balwa v. Union of India (2014) 2 sec 687 : (2013) 11 SCR 51 - relied on.
Right to file a revision petition
2.1 While the' text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. · G appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition in a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
.549
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
under Section 397 Cr.P.C. However, this does not mean that the A appellants have no remedy available to them - the order does not proliibit the appellants from approaching this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, all that has happened is that the forum for ventilating the grievance of the appellants has shifted from the High Court to this Court. It was submitted by one of the B counsel that this is not good enough for the appellants since this Court is not obliged to give reasons while dismissing such a petition unlike the High Court which would necessarily have to give reasons if it rejected a revision petition. The mere fact that this Court could dismiss the petition filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution without giving reasons does not C necessarily lea_d to the conclusion that reasons will not be- given or that some equitable order will not be passed. The submission has no basis and is only a presumption of what this Court might do. A submission that has its foundation on a hypothesis cannot be accepted. [Paras 27 and 28[ [568-C-H]
D
2.5 As held in Amar Nath that if an interlocutory order is ·not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. that cannot be circumvented by resort to section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concurred with. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this propositiOn. [Para 291 [569-BI
E
2.6 While in some appeals the· order summoning the appellant or the order for framing charges is in question in other appeals the grievance is in respect of: admission and denial of documents under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.; alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.; joint or single trial unde.r Sections 219 and 220 of the Cr.P.C.; summoning additional accused persons. A challenge to orders of this non-substantive nature that can be agitated in a regular appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. [Para 33) [516-F-G]
F
Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Benga/. [19591 Supp. 1 SCR 63; Kamlesh Kumar v. State of'Jharkhand (2013) 15 SCC 460 : [2013) 14 SCR 263; Akalu Ahir v: Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583 : [1974J 1SCR130; Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A 551 : [1978] I SCR 749; K.K. Patel 1'. State of Gujarat (2000) 6 SCC 195 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 312; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335: 119901 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Satya Narayan Sharma v. State ol Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 607: [20011 3 Suppl. SCR 268; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of B India (2012) 3 SCC 117 - referred to.
Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution
3.1 There is no doubt that the power of superintendence available to the High Court under Article 227 is extremely vast c but at the same time as held in Shali11i Shyam Shetty the High Court cannot exercise that power of superintendence on the drop of a hat. In addition, in exercise of its power of superintendence the High Court cannot correct mere errors of law or fact only because another view is possible. [Para 37] [571-F-Gl
D 3.2 The power under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and that it is so, resort to Artkks 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Cr.P.C. E restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, it is difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues. In any event, F if such a one in a million case does arise, the appellants can certainly approach this Court for relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. While there can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be curtailed, yet extraordinary situations could arise where it would be advisable for a High Court to decline to interfere. There is therefore nothing G extraordinary if this Court were to pass an order that in a certain identified category of cases, the High Court ought not to interfere and leave it to this Court to take a decision in the matter in larger public interest, which this Court has already seen and explained. [Paras 38, 39, 40, 41) [572-C-G; 574-El
H
551
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (l 997) 3 SCC 261 : [ 1997] 2 SCR 1186 ; Shalini Shyam She tty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 : [2010[ 8 SCR 836 ; Karfar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : [1994[ 2 SCR 375 - referred to.
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
4;1 The coal block allocation cases form one identifiable category of cases that are distinct from other cases since they have had a massive impact on public interest and there have been large scale illegalities associated with the allocation of coal blocks. It is therefore necessary to treat these cases differentially since they form a unique identifiable category. The treatment of these cases is certainly not arbitrary-on the contrary, the classification is in public interest and for the public good with a view to bring persons who have allegedly committed corrupt activities, withfo the rille of law. It is hence not possible to accept the submission that by treating the entire batch of coal block allocation cases iii. a particular manner different from the usual cases that flood the Courts, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 43) (574-H; 575-A-C]
4.2 The cases fall in a class apart, arising as they do out of the illegal and unlaw'ful allocation of coal blocks. It is only in respect of these cases that this Court monitored the investigations and it is only in respect of these cases that the order was passed by this Court on 25'h July, 2014. The cases arc concerned with large scale corruption that polluted the allocation of coal blocks and they form a clear and distinct class that need to be treated in a manner different from the cases that our .i ustice delivery system usually deals with. The classification being identifiable and clear, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, the order passed by this Court docs not amount to legislating in the classical mould but according special treatment to a class of' cases for good and clear reason and in larger public interest as well as in the interest of the accused. (Para 45, 46[ [576-H; 577-A-B, DI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] SCR 284; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 :
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A [19881 1 Suppl. SCR 1 ; Kedar Nath Bajoriu v. State of West Bengal [19541 SCR 30 - referred to.
Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
E
Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution
6.1 lt is no doubt true that the words 'complete justice' appearing in Article 142 of the Constitution enable this Court to exercis1i extremely wide powers but there is also no doubt that F the power is ancillary and can be made use of only when it is not in conflict with the substantive provisions of any law. (Para 51)(578-EJ
6.2 While it is true that the fundamental rights of a citizen cannot be taken away even by an order of the court except where a restriction is placed by the statute such as remanding an accused G to judicial custody. No right of the appellants has been curtailed by this Court by the order under consideration. It is only the forum in which the right to seek relief has been varied, and not denied, It cannot be seen how this is impermissible or contrary to any law or any fundamental right of the appellants. (Para 52( H (578-GJ
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
553
6.3 This Court is undoubtedly obliged to protecf the A fundamental rights of the people in the country in accordance with the Constitution, but it is equally true that while doing so public interest cannot be flung out of the window. It is i10w time for all including the courts to balance the right of an accused person vis7ii-vis the rights and interests of individual victims of a B crime and society. Very often, public interest is lost sight of while dealing with an accused person and the rights of an accused person are given far greater importance than societal interests and more often than not greater importance than the rights of individual victims. This is a delicate balance to be struck and no curtailment of any fundamental right of the appellants or any violation of any c substantive Jaw is seen if there is a change in the forum in the exercise of the rights of the appellants given the nature of the allegations against them and the wide impact on society. It is not as if the appellants have bee11 denuded of their rights. 1t is only .that their rights have been placed in the proper perspective and . D they have been enabled to exercise their rights before another forum. [Para 531 [579-A-D]
A
B
c
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors v. State of tfaharashtra 119661 3 SCR 744 ; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [19881 l Suppl. SCR 1 ; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [19981 2 SCR 795; State ol Punjab 1'. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 : [20141 8 SCR 228 - referred to.
E
Stay of proceedings
F
7.1 This Court is not in any manner monitoring the progress of the trial in the coal block allocation cases nor is it supervising the trial. Conducting the trial is entirely the business of the Special Judge. The order only results in· the removal of any impediment in the progress of the trial. To ensure that the trial is G concluded at the earliest not only in the interest of the accused persons but also in public interest, any application intended to stay or impede the trial will be subject to orders of this Court. This out of the ordinary step has been taken given the serious. nature of allegations made against those believed to be involved in the illegal allocation of coal blocks and in the interest of the · H
G
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A accused as well as in larger public interest. There is a need for maintaining a balance between the rights of an accused and the rights of an individual victim and society. [Para 571 [580-E-GI
7.2 The emphasis given by counsel on the right of the appellants to apply for a stay of proceedings gives the impression B that the appellants are primarily concerned with an interim order of stay and not in the conclusion of the trial. It should be clear that a stay of proceedings is not the most important part of a trial and should not be the main or the sole objective of an accused. There is a need to think beyond a stay of criminal proceedings which has played havoc with the criminal justice delivery. !Para C 58) 1581-B-CJ
7.3 The submission that the order passed b~ this Court fetters the discretion of the High Court in granting a stay of proceedings proceeds on the assumption that the High Court has an unfettered discretion to stay a trial. This is simply not soD the stay of a trial is a rather extraordinary step and cannot he given for the asking. The concern is not with any ordinary criminal trial, but a trial for an offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is stated in the statement and object and reasons of the Act that "in order to E expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been included." Both these objectives have been incorporated in the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 through Section 19 and Section 4 thereof. It is clear that the intention of F Parliament, which ought to be respected, is the expeditious conclusion of a trial on a day-to-day basis without any impediment and certainly not an impediment through a stay of proceedings granted for the asking as ifit were an ordinary criminal trial. (Para 59 and 601 [581-D-F~ H; 582-Al
G Income Tax O.fficer v. MK. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430 : [ 1969( SCR 65; Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 13 SCC 614 : 12012111 SCR 1 ; Vineet Narain v. Union a,/ India (1998) 1 SCC 226 : I I 9971 6 Suppl. SCR 595 - referred to.
H
555
GIRlSH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
A
Prevention of Corruption Act
8.1 The submission that the prohibition against granting a stay of proceedings is not absolute insofar as Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act is concerned; and that if there is a failure of justice, a stay of proceedings could certainly be granted by the High Court, cannot be accepted. A conjoint reading of sub-clause (b) and subclause (c) of Section 19(3) makes it is clear that a stay of proceedings could be granted only and only if there is an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted for a prosecution and that error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. There is no other situation that is contemplated for the grant of a stay of proceedings under the PC Act on any other C ground whatsoever, even if there is a failure of justice. Clause (c) additionally mandates a prohibition on the exercise of revision jurisdiction in respect of any interlocutory order passed in any trial. The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act read together are quite clear and do not admit of any D ambiguity or the need for any further interpretation. [Para 62, 65J [583-F; 584-C-EJ
8.2 In enacting Section 19 in the manner which it did, Parliament has made it abundantly clear that it is extremely concerned about ensuring that trials under the PC Act are concluded expeditiously not only in the interest of the accused but also in public interest. This concern of Parliament must be respected. To doubly ensure that there is no 'indirect' stay of proceedings by calling for the records of the Special Judge while dealing with a revision petition filed by an accused person, Section 22 of the PC Act has been enacted with reference to Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. By virtue of Section 22(d), a proviso has- been added to Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. which makes it clear that the court exercising revision jurisdiction shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings unless certain conditions are fulfilled. [Paras 68 and 691 [586-C-DJ
B
E
F
G
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal (1999) 8 SCC 501 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 570 - referred to.
8.3 An allegation of 'failure of justice' is a very strong allegation and use of an equally strong expression and cannot be
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A equated with a miscarriage of justice or a violation of law or an irregularity in procedure-it is much more. If the expression is to be understood as in common parlance, the result would be that seldom would a trial reach a conclusion since an irregularity could take place at any stage, inadmissible evidence could be B erroneously admitted, an adjournment wrongly declined etc. Thus, Section 19(3)(c) must be given a very restricted interpretation and not the over-broad interpretation. [Para 771 1590-E-FI
Shamnsaheb M. Multani v. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577 : [200111 SCR 514; State of MP v. Bhooraji (2001) 7 SCC 679 : 120011 2 Suppl. SCR c 128 ; Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 : [20121 3 SCR 496 ; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516 : [20141 8 SCR 446 Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principle Secretary & Ors (2014) 9 SCC 614 : [2014) 12 SCR 110 - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
| [2014]8 SCR446 | referred to | Para 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| [2014112SCR110 | referred to | Para1 | |
| E | [19591Supp. 1 SCR63 | referredto | Para12 |
| [2013)14SCR263 | referredto | Para13 | |
| [1974]1 SCR 130 | referred to | Para14 | |
| [1988)1 Suppl. SCR 1 | referredto | Para14 | |
| F | [1978)1 SCR222 | referredto | Para18 |
| [197811 SCR749 | referredto | Para21 | |
| .120001l Suppl. SCR 312 | referredto | Para22 | |
| [199013 Suppl. SCR259 | referredto | Para31 | |
| G | [200113 Suppl. SCR268 | referredto | Para32 |
| [1997]2 SCR1186 | referred to | Para35 | |
| [2010]8 SCR836 | referredto | Para36 | |
| [199412 SCR 375 | referred to | Para40 |
H
557
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
| "[1952] SCR 284 | referredto | Para42 | A |
|---|---|---|---|
| [1954) SCR 30 | referredto | Para44 | |
| [196613 SCR744 | referredto | Para50 | |
| (1998)2 SCR 795 | referredto | Para51 | |
| [2014)8 SCR 228 | referredto· | Para54 | B |
| (19691SCR65 | referredto | Para55 | |
| [2012)11~CR1 | referredto | Para55 | |
| (1997) 6 Suppl. SCR595 | referredto | Para56 | |
| [1999)3 Suppl. SCR570 | referredto | Para67 | c |
| [2001)1 SCR 514 | referred to | Para71 | |
| [2001)2 Suppl. SCR 128 | referredto | Para72,73 | |
| [2012)3 SCR 496 | referredto | Para72 | |
| (2012) 3sec111 | reliedon | Para78 | D |
| [2013)11SCR51 | reliedon | Para79 | |
| CRIMINALAPPELLA No.1137of2017. |
TEJURISDICTION : |
Criminal Appeal - |
E |
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2q 16 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Cr!. M. C. No. 3847 of2016
WITH. \
Crimina!Appea!Nos.1151-1152, 1149-1150, 1141, 1146, 1143, 11471148, 1144, 1139, 1140; 1153-1154, 1145, 1142and1138 of2017..
F
SLP (Crl.)A. No. 1441 of2017.
Gopal Subramanium, K. V. Vishwartathan, Shyam Divan, A. Sharan, R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advs., Madhurima, Yashir, Ashwarya·Sinha,Atul Shanker Mathur, Ms. Priya Singh, Gurpreet Singh Parwanda, Rajeev . G_oel, Vivek Mathur, Ms. Shradha Karol, Ankur Kashyap, Utkarsh G Shrivastav (for Mis. Khaitan & Co.), A. V. Rangam, Vijay Aggarwal, Yash Varma, Mudit Jain, Suresh Antil,Amit Krishna, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Md. Shahid Anwar, Vishwa Pal Singh,B.S. Mathur, Rajat Mathur, Shri Singh, Yogesh Raavi, A. MukUnda Rao,
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
A Dhananj;ty Ray, Vijay Kumar, Siddharth Agga1wal, Arshdeep Singh, Paraz Maqbool, Akshat Gupta, Senthil Jagadeesan, Abhisth Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand, Amit Anand Tiwari, Sanchit Gum, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Vishakha, Ms. Hirai Gupta, Manvendra Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. On 251 h August, 2014, this Court delivered judgment in Ma11ohar Lal Sharma i'. Principal Secretary.' Subsequently, further orders were passed in the case on 24'" September, 2014.2 These decisions are commonly referred to as having been rendered c in the Coal Block Allocation cases.
D
E
F
G
"4. In pursuance of our order dated 18.7.2014, the Registrar General, Delhi High Court has intimated to the Secretary General of this Court that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court has been pleased to nominate Mr. Bharat Prashar, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service for being posted as Special Judge to deal and exclusively try the offences pertaining to coal block allocation matters under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of MoneyLaunderingAct, 2002 and other allied offences.
5. We, accordingly, direct the competent authorities to issue requisite notifications appointing Mr. Bharat Prashar, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Special Judge for the above purpose. The notifications shall be issued within two weeks from the date ·of communication of copy of this order.
'(2014) 9 sec s16
H '(2014) <J sec 614
559
GJRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v .. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
the matter. While doing so, Mr. R.S. Cheema may keep in view A the magnitude and complexities of the case.
B
c
_ 7. A learned Single Judge of th!! High Court heard elaborate submissions oflearned counsel and by a well reasoned order, after relying
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A upon several decisions of this Court and of the Delhi High Court, concluded that in view of the order passed by this Court on 25'h July, 2014 the petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Against that decision of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred bySuneja.
B 8. Appeals raising a. similar issue have been preferred by other accused Persons arising out of the same order and also by others in other proceedings before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R.S. Cheema placed before us a tabular statement of all appeals raising the same. substantive issue as has been raised by Suneja. With consent, we took up all these appeals and heard learned C cou.nsel for the appellants as also the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the CBI.
B
E
F
G
(i) The right to file a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Cr.P.C. as well · approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken away;
(ii) The order passed by this Court has taken away the right of the appellants to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and thereby judicial review, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, has been violated which even Parliament cannot violate;
(iii) Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated by treating the coal block allocation cases as a separate class having a separate procedure, thereby denying to them equal protection of the law; (iv) The right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution has been restricted;
(v) Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution oblige this Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and not curtail them;
H
561
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(vi) The High Court has an inherent right to grant a stay of· A proceedings, but this Court has precluded the High Court from granting a stay of proceedings and has thereby deprived the High Court of exercising an inherent right; ·
(vii) The prohibition in granting a stay under Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act is not absolute and in an appropriate case, a stay of B proceedings could be granted in favour of an accused person particularly when there is a failure of justice. Any restrictive reading would entail a fetter on the discretion of the High Court which itself might lead to a failure of justice.
Right to file a revision petition
D
•
E
G
-......._
3 1959 Supp. (I) SCR 63
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
•I
"In our opinion, in the absence of statutory provisions, in terms applying to an application in revision, as there are those in Section 431 in respect of criminal appeals, the High Court has the power B to pass such orders as to it may seem fit and proper, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction vested in it by Section 439 of the Code. Indeed, it is a discretionary power which has to be exercised in aid of justice. Whether or not the High Cow·t will exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a given case, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. The revisional powers of the c High Court vested in it by Section 439 of the Code, read with Section 435, do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserve the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that subordinate Criminal Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, D or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code."
'(2013) 15 sec 460
'AkaluAhir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1973) 2 SCC 583
H ,, (1988) 2 sec 602
563
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
A
C
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jmisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 39S.
D
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiiy, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
E
F
G
H
,. ,
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Amar Nath v. State of Haryana1 in which case the interpretation and
B impact of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. came up for consideration. This .decision is important for two reasons. Firstly it gives the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and secondly considering that historical background, it gives a justification for a restrictive meaning to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
E that the Government kept in mind the following for the purposes of enacting the Cr.P.C.:
(iii) the procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community."
"(5) Some of the more important changes proposed to be made with a view to speeding up the disposal of criminal cases are -
H '(1977)4SCCl37
565
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
( d) the powers of revision against intedocutory orders are being A takeri away, as it has been found to be one of the main contributing factors in the delay or disposal of criminal cases; " In reply to the debate on the subject, it was stated by Shri Ram / Niwas Mirdha the concerned Minister that: , "It was stated before the Select Committee tha~ large-number B of appeals against interlocutory orders are filed With the result that the appeals got delayed considerably. Some of the more i;iotorious cases concern big business persons. So, this new provision was also welcomed by most of the witnesses as well as the Select Committee .... This was a well-thought out measure c . so we do not want to delete it." . As noted in Amar Nath the purpose of introducing Section397(2) o"f the Cr.P.C. was to curb delays in the deCision of criminal cases and thereby to benefit the accused by giving him or her a fair and expeditious trial. Unfortunately, this legislative intendment is soughtto be turned D topsy turvy by the appellants. · .
'(1977)4 sec 551
• (2000) 6 sec 195
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
A was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said:
"It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during B the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Hm)·ana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBJl0 and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam11 ). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely c interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable." D (Emphasis supplied by us).
G
"While we fully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that where a revision to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge is expressly barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code the inherent powers contained in 10 1980 Supp. sec 92
H 11 (1999) 3 sec 134
567
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I.
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Section 482 would not be available to defeat the bar contained in A Section 397(2). Section 482 of the 1973 Code contains the inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly B barred under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject ofrevision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court C cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers." (Emphasis ' supplied by us).
| 25.This viewwasreaffirmedin**Madhulimaye**whenthe | |
|---|---|
| followingprincipleswereapprovedinrelationtoSection482oftheCr.P.C. in,thecontextofSection 397(2)thereof.Theprinciplesare: |
D |
| (I) Thatthepowerisnottoberesortedtoifthereisa specific provisionintheCodefortheredressofthegrievance ofthe aggrievedparty; |
|
| (2)Thatitshouldbeexercisedverysparinglytopreventabuseof processofanyCourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjus- tice; |
E |
| (3)Thatitshouldnotbeexercisedasagainsttheexpressbarof lawengraftedinanyother provision oftheCode. |
Therefore, it is quite clear that the prohibition in Section 397 of F the Cr.P.C. will govern Section 482 thereof. We endorse this view.
H
568
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A It is quite obvious that the Section is with reference to the Cr.P.C. of 1898 and not the Cr.P.C. of 1973. The law as it stood with reference to the Cr.P.C. of 1898 is radically different from the law with reference to the Cr.P.C. of 1973. Moreover and quite obviously, since this Court had directed in Antulay that the trial would have to be conducted not by B the Special Judge but by the High Court, no revision would lie to the High Court from its own order. Therefore, we are of opinion that the appellants cannot draw any support for their submissions fromAntulay.
E
H
569
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. . [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
A-
30 .. What then is the utility of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? This was considered and explained in Mad/tu Limaye which ,noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and at the same time the expansive text of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and posed the question: In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? This Court then proceeded to answer the question in the following manner:
C
"In' such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that D the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent po~er will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, ifthe order assailed E is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High F Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly."
E
F
G
12 1992 Supp(l)SCC 335
H
\
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
A 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised in the "rarest of rare" cases. It was said:
c 32. In Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan13 this Court considered the provisions of the PC Act and held that there could be no stay of a trial under the PC Act. It was clarified that that does not mean that the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken recourse to, but even if a litigant approaches the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that petition is ente1tained, the trial under the PC Act D cannot be stayed. The litigant may convince the court to expc!dite the hearing of the petition filed, but merely because the court is not in a position to grant an early hearing would not be a ground to stay the trial even temporarily. With respect, we do not agree with the proposition that for the purposes of a stay of proceedings recourse could be had to E Section 482 of the Cr.P. C. Our discussion above makes this quite clear.
H u (2001) s sec 607
·-·--~-... ----
:~. - --- .
571
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
A
B
C
Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution
3 5. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that paragraph I 0 of the order passed by this Court prohibits the appellants from apprQaching the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In this context; it was submitted that it is now well settled that judicial review D by the High Court and by this Court is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and this has been recognized in L. Chapdra Kumar v. Union of India.15
E
F
3 7. There is no doubt that the power of superintendence available to the High Court under Article 227 is extremely _vast but at the same time as held in Shalini Shyam Shetty the High Court cannot exercise that power of superintendence on the drop of a hat. .In addition, in exercise of its power of superintendence the High Court cannot correct G mere errors oflaw or fact only because another view is possible. What is more important is the following principle that has been culled out:
"(2012) 3 sec 117
"(1997) 3 sec 261
"(201 o) s sec 329
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
B
"This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant ofrelief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 of the i Constitution is meant for protection of individual grievance: Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial disci_pline pointed out above."
11 (I994) 3 sec 569
H
__ .. ~ .. ___ -........
·---·------·-·--
573
GJRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
context, this Court took the view that given the special nature of.the A statute, if a High Court entertains a bail application invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and passes orders, the· very scheme and object of the TADAAct and the interidment of the Parliament would be completely defeated and frustrated .. It-as held that a High Court would interfere, if at all, only in extreme_ and rare cases and - B additionally, judicial discipline and comity of courts require that High · Courts should refrain from exercising their jurisdiction in entertaining bail applications, more particularly since this Com1 could grant reliefin an appropriate.case under Article 136 of the C,opstitution. It was held:
E
F
"(1994) 2 sec 664
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
B
under Article 226 cannot be put in strait-jacket. However, we would like to emphasise and re-emphasise that the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising their jurisdiction in entertaining bail applications in respect of an accused indicted under the special Act since this Court has jurisdiction to interfere and correct the orders of the High Courts under Article 136 of the Constitution."
This was reaffirmed subsequently in the decision in the following words:
c
D
"Though it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders either way, relating to the cases under the Act 1987, that power should be exercised sparingly, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters."
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
G 43. In our opinion, it is not as if one single case has been taken up for allegedly discriminatory treatment out of an entire gamut of cases. All the cases relating to the allocation of coal blocks have been compartmentalized and are required to be treated and dealt with in the same manner. The coal block allocation cases form one identifiable " 1952 SCR 284
H
575
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
category of cases that are distinct from other cases since they have had A a massivejmpact on public interest and there have been large scale illegalities associated with the allocation of coal blocks. It is therefore necessary to treat these cases differentially since they form a unique identifiable category. The treatment of these cases is certainly not arbitrary- on the contrary, the classification is in public interest and for B the public good with a view to bring persons who have allegedly committed corrupt activities, within the rule of law. It is hence not possible to accept the submission that by treating the entire batch of coal block allocation cases in a particular manner different from the usual cases that flood the Courts, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
E
"Whether an enactment providing for special procedure for the trial of certain offences is or is not discriminatory and violative of Article 14 must be determined in each case as it arises, for, no general rule applicable to all cases can safely be laid down. A practical assessment of the operation of the law in the particular F circumstances is necessary. There are to be found cases on each side of the line: Anwar Ali Sarkar case is an authority on one side; the Saurashtra case21 is on the other. Apart from dicta here and there in the course of the judgments delivered in these cases and the decisions based on them, there is no real conflict of principle involved in them. The majority decision in Anwar Ali G Sarkar case proceeded on the view that no standard was laid down and no principle or policy was disclosed in the legislation challenged in that case, to guide the exercise of discretion by the
20 1954 SCR 30
21 1952 SCR 435
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
B
Government in selecting a "case" for reference to the Special Court for trial under the special procedure provided in the Act. All that was relied on as indicative of a guiding principle for selection was the object, as disclosed in the preamble of the West Bengal Act, of providing for the "speedier trial of certain offences", but the majority of the learned Judges brushed that aside as too indefinite and vague to constitute a reasonable basis for classification."
It was then said:
c
D
E
F
G
"It will be seen that the main reasoning of the majority Judges in Anwar Ali Sarkar case as disclosed in the passages extracted above is hardly applicable to the statute here in question which is based on a classification which, in the context of the abnormal post-war economic and social conditions is readily intelligibl~ and obviously calculated to subserve the legislative purpose. The case, in our opinion, falls on the same side of the line as the Saurashtra ruling where Anwar Ali Sarkar:~ case was dlStinguishe~ by three of the learned Judges who were parties to the majority decision in the earlier case. Faz! Ali, J. observed: "There is however one very important difference between the West Bengal Act and the present Ordinance which, in my opinion, does afford such justification (for upholding the Ordinance), and I shall try to refer to it as briefly as possible. I think that a distinction should be drawn between discrimination without reason and discrimination with reason .... The main objection to the West Bengal Act was that it permitted discrimination without reason or without any rational basis .... The mere mention of"speedier trial" as the object of the Act did not "cure the defect", as the expression "afforded no help in determining what cases required spet::dier trial ... The clear recital (in the Saurashtra Ordinance) of a definite objective furnishes a tangible and rational basis of classification to the State Government for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Ordinance and for choosing only such offences or cases as affect public safety, maintenance of public order and the preservation of peace and tranquillity ..... "
577
( i )
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
the investigations and it is only in respect of these cases that the order A was passed by this Court on 25u, July, 2014. The cases are concerned with large scale corruption that polluted the allocation of coal blocks and they fonn a clear and distinct class that need to be treated in a manner different from the cases that our justice delive1y system usually deals with. The classification being identifiable and clear, we do not see any B violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
C
D
Viofation of Article 21 of the Constitution
E
F
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A in this view of the matter that this Court had no option but to hand over the investigations to the CBI and to monitor the investigations so that they reach their logical conclusion, without any interference from any quarter. The magnitude of the 'illegalities is such that it appears that even the integrity of the Director of the CBI was prima facie B compromised, and this Court had to intervene and direct investigations into the conduct of the Director of the CBI. That being so, it can hardly be said with any degree of seriousness that the procedure adopted by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, violate any right to the life and liberty of any of the appellants or any other persons allegedly involved in the criminality associated with the allocation of coal blocks.
· C Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution
22 (1966) 3 SCR 744
H " (I 99&) 4 sec 409
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
579
D
E
F
G
Stay of proceedings
"(2014) s sec 883
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A proceedings in a criminal case. Reliance was placed on J11come Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi25 wherein it was categorically held by this Com1 that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant a stay as incidental or ancillary to its appell:ile jurisdiction. Reference was also made to Satish Meltra v. State (NCT B_of Delhi).26_There is no doubt that a High Court has an inherent power to grant a stay of proceedings and it is not necessary to labour. any further on this issue.
'.
"' (2012) 13 sec 614
H 21 (1998) 1sec226
GlRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
581
so as not to make the exercise completely futile. This is an important A aspect of the rule of law, the emphasis being on a strQng and competent prosecution machinery and not merely a fair and competent investigation followed by an equally fair trial. This is in the nature of an entire package and to obtain appropriate results (one way or the other) is to ensure there is no unnecessary impediment in a trial, in the form of a stay of B .proceedings or in any other manner. The emphasis given by learned counsel on the right of the appellants to apply for a stay of proceedings gives the impression thatthe appellants are primarily concerned with an intelim order of stay and not in the conclusion of the trial. It should be clear that a stay of proceedings is not the most important part of a trial and should not be the main or the sole objective of an accused. We need C to think beyond a stay of criminal proceedings which has played havoc with our criminal justice delivery.
~.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis."
H is clear that the intention of Parliament, ·which ought to be respected, is the expeditious conclusion of a tri_al on a day-to-day basis
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
Prevention of Corruption Act
B for the appellants, namely, with regard to the interpretation of Section I 9(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows:-
(b) in the case of a per~on who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
E
( c) in the case ofany other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State F Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal G Procedure, 1973 (2 of1974),-
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1 ), unless
H
583
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR,J.]
in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been A occasioned thereby; · (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; B ( c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. ( 4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, c or any error, omission or irregularity in such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, - D (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or E any requirement of a similar nature." 62, The submission oflearned counsel for the appellants was that the prohibition against granting a stay of proceedings is not absolute insofar as Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act is concerned. It was submitted that ifthere is a failure of justice, a stay of proceedings could F certainly be granted by the High Court.
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
C Section 1.9(3) of the PC Act makes it is clear that a stay of proceedings could be granted only and only ifthere is an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted for a prosecution and that error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. There is no other situation that is contemplated for the grant of a stay of proceedings under the PC
D -Act on any other ground whatsoever, even ifthere is a failure of justice. Clause ( c) additionally mandates a prohibition on the exercise ofrevision jurisdiction in respect of any interlocutory order passed in any trial such as those that we have already referred to. In our opinion, the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act read together are quite clear and do not admit of any ambiguity or the need for any further
E interpretation.
" (1999) s sec so 1
H
585
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
or irregularity in the grant of sanction has occasioned or resulted in a A failure of justice, the court has a duty to consider whether the accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. Even if it had been raised at the trial and early enough, it would not be sufficient to conclude that there was a failure of justice. Whether in fact and in law there was a failure of justice would differ from case to case but it was B made clear that if such an objection was not raised in the trial, it certainly cannot be raised in appeal or in revision. It was explained that a trial involves judicial scrutiny of the entire material before the Special Judge. Therefore, ifon a judicial scrutiny of the evidence on record the Special Judge comes to a conclusion that there was sufficient reason to convict the accused person, the absence or error or omission or irregularity would C actually become a surplusage. The necessity of a sanction is only as a filter to safekuard public servants from frivolous or ma la fide or vindictive prosecution. However, after judicial scrutiny is complete and a conviction is made out through the filtration process, the issue of a sanction really would become inconsequential. Jt was held in paragraphs I 0 and 11 of D the Report as under:
B
C
D
"A court of appeal or revision is debarred from reversing a finding (or even an order of conviction and sentence) on account of any error or irregularity in the sanction for the prosecution, unless failure of justice had been occasioned on account of such error or irregularity. For determining whether want of valid sanction had in fact occasioned failure of justice the aforesaid sub-section (2) enjoins on the court a duty to consider whether the accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. Even ifhe had raised any such objection at the early stage it is hardly sufficient to conclude that there was failure of justice. It has to be determined on the facts of each case. But an accused who did not raise it at the trial ·stage cannot possibly sustain such a plea made for the first time in the appellate court ......
E
F
In a case where the accused failed to raise the question of valid . sanction the trial would normally proceed to its logical end by making a judfoial scrutiny of the entire materials. Jfthat case ends in conviction there is no question of failure of justice on the mere premise that no valid sanction was accorded for prosecuting the public servant becau~e the very purpose of providing such a filtering check is to safeguard public servants from frivolous or
G
H
. '
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
B
mala fide or vindictive· prosecution on the allegation that they have committed offence in the discharge of their official duties. But · once the judicial filtering process is over on completion of the trial the purpose of providing for the initial sanction would bog down to a surplusage. This could be the reason for providing a bridle lipon the appellate and revisional forums as envisaged in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
"Provided that where the powers under this ~, ·ti on are exercised E by a court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings, -
(a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or
F
(b) If it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies."
H
587
GlRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.I. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Special Judge may also be made on the basis of certified copies of the record. Quite clearly, the intention of Parliament is that there should not be any impediment in the trial of a case under the PC Act.
A
B ·
"We often hear about "failure of justice" and quite often the · C submission in a criminal court is accentuated with the said expression. Perhaps it is too pliable or facile an expression which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression "failure of justice" would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon (the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplockin Town D Investments Ltd. v. · Deptt. of the Environment30 ). The criminal court, particularly the superior court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage.
One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is that no man should be condemned without being he_ard, (audi alteram partem ). But the law reports are replete with instances of courts hesitating to approve the contention that failure of justice had occasioned merely because a person was not heard on a particular aspect. However, ifthe aspect is of such a nature that non-explanation of it has contributed to 'penalising ai.J. individual, the court should say that since he was not given the o~porturiity\o explain that aspect there was failure of justice on account of non-compliance with · the principle ofnaturaljustice." . · ·
E
F
. ..
" (2001J1 sec 679 "(2012) 4 sec 516
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A result in a failure of justice making the criminal justice delivery system completely illusory. Rattiram dealt with non-compliance with Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. and it was held that this did not result in a failure of justice. It was held in paragraphs 65 and 66 of the Report as follows:
"We may state without any fear of contradiction that if the failme B of justice is not bestowed its due signification in a case of the present nature, every procedural lapse or interdict would be given a privileged place on the pulpit. It would, with unnecessary interpretative dynamism, have the effect potentiality to cause a dent in the criminal justice delivery system and eventually, justice would become illusory like a mirage. It is to be bome in mind that c the legislature deliberately obliterated certain rights conferred on the accused at the committal stage under the new Code. The intendment of the legislature in the plainest sense is that every stage is not to be treated as vital and it is to be interpreted to subserve the substantive objects of the criminal trial.
D
Judged from these spectrums and· analysed on the aforesaid premises, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the objection relating to non-compliance with Section 193 of the Code, which eventually has resulted in directly entertaining and taking cognizance by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and E the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground alone, the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a direction of retrial and, therefore, the decision rendered inBhooraji lays down the c01Tect law inasmuch as there is no failure of justice or no prejudice is caused to the accused."
F
" c2001) 7 sec 679
H
589
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
"Has the Tribunal (United Nations Administrative Tribunal) committed a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned the failure of justice as c\intended in the application to the Committee for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements?" B
"Another ground for review provided in the proposed new Articl.e 11 was the commission of a fundamental error in procedure. The use of the word 'fundamental' was . illtended to preclude review . I on account of trivial errors irt procedure or errors that were not of a substantial nature. In order to make the intention clearer, the D Indian delegation would suggest that the phrase which has occasioned a failure of justice' should be inserted after the words 'fundamental error in procedure' in the text of the aticle."
. 76. While considering the interpretation of the expression 'a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned a failure of justice' the International Court of Justice expressed the view that to constitute a failure of justice an error in procedure is fundamental when it is of the kind where the fundamental right ofa staff member to present his case, either orally or in writing is denied. The International Cocit then proceeded to identify certain elements of the right to hearing well recognized as for. instance t!1e right to an independent andimpartial triburtal established by law; the right to have the case heard and determined within a reasonable time; the right to a reasonable opportunity to present the case to tqe tribunal and to comment up~ the opponent case; the right to equality in the proceedings vis-a-vis t~e opponent; and the right to a reasoned decision. It was stated in paragraph 92 of the Advisory Opinion as follows:,
E
F
G
"It may not be easy to state ·exhaustively what is involved in the concept of" a fundamental error in procedure which has
34 Application for Review of Judgment No.158 of the United Nations Admjnistrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1973, ~.166
H
[2017) 9 S.C.R.
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
B
c
D
occasioned a failure ofjustice". But the essence of it. in the cases before the Administrative Tribunal, may be found in the fundamental right of a staff member to pre~ent his case, either orally or in \VTiting, and to have it considered by the Tribunal before it determines his rights. An error in procedure is fundamental and constitutes "a failure of justice" when it is of such a kind as to violate the official's right to a fair hearing as above defined and in that sense to deprive him ofjustice. To put the matter in that way does.not provide a complete answer to the problem of determining precisely what errors in procedure are coven:d by the words of Article l I. But certain elements of the right to a fair hearing are well recognized and provide criteria helpful in identifying fundamental errors in procedure which have occasioned a failure of justice: for instance, the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; the right to have the case heard and determined within a reasonable time; the right to a reasonable opportunity to present the case to the tribunal and to comment upon the opponent's case; the right to equality in the proceedings vis-a-vis the opponent; and the right to a reasoned decision."
G
"We also make it clear that any objection about the 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.
" (2012) 3 sec 1 17
J-1
GIRJSH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
591
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."
A
C
E
F
G
H
592
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
,.
A
B
c
doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and, any order so made, shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. The parties, in such a case, cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constih1tion of India or under Section 482 CrPC 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 A11icle 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 CrPC, 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 Constimtion of India."
E
F
G
"We also, therefore, find no basis in the contention of the pe.titioners that the orders dated 11-4-2011and9-11-2012 have the effect of monitoring the trial proceedings. No court, other than the court seized of the trial, h~s the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. The order dated 11-4-2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse the courts' 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 defay 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 of2G 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 cooperate with the progress of the trial.
H
593
GIRISI-i KUMAR SUNEJA v .. C.B.l. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their A innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable. to get on with their lives and business."
Conclusion
B
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Supreme Court's order restricting prayers to stay proceedings in coal block cases to itself only, violated Articles 14, 21, and the right to access to justice.
Whether Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 permits a stay of proceedings on any ground other than failure of justice arising from an error in sanction.
Whether Section 397(2) CrPC bars revisions on interlocutory orders and Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent that bar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶78
(2012) 3 SCC 117 · Who else cites this
Shahid Balwa v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶78
(2014) 2 SCC 687 · Who else cites this
Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West BengalReferred¶12
(1959) Supp. (1) SCR 63 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Kumar v. State of JharkhandRelied on¶13
(2013) 15 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
Amar Nath v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶21
(1977) 4 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
Madhu Limaye v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶21
(1977) 4 SCC 551 · Who else cites this
Kartar Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶39
(1994) 2 SCR 375 · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali SarkarReferred¶42
(1952) SCR 284 · Who else cites this
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. NayakReferred¶44
(1988) 2 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Girish Kumar Suneja
CBI
Madan B. Lokur
Kurian Joseph
A. K. Sikri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
