Case Note & Summary
The case involved a public interest litigation filed by Harinder Singh Chowdhary challenging the issuance of a Letter Rogatory by the CBI in a criminal case related to the Bofors scandal. The FIR registered on 22.1.90 alleged a criminal conspiracy involving illegal gratification from the Swedish company Bofors to Indian public servants. The CBI sought judicial assistance from Switzerland to investigate bank accounts linked to the case. The Special Judge allowed the CBI's application for a Letter Rogatory, prompting Chowdhary to file a petition asserting that no such request should be made without establishing allegations against the accused. The Special Judge dismissed Chowdhary's petition, leading to a revision petition in the High Court, which also dismissed it on the grounds of lack of locus standi. The High Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter, issuing a show cause notice to the CBI and the State regarding the FIR. Various appeals were filed in the Supreme Court, including those by political parties seeking intervention. The Supreme Court ruled that public interest litigants do not have the standing to challenge criminal proceedings against specified accused persons, emphasizing that such matters should be raised by the accused themselves. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Janata Dal and others, while allowing the appeal by the Union of India against the High Court's suo moto cognizance. The court upheld the legality of the ongoing proceedings related to the FIR, allowing them to continue in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Locus Standi - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 51-A - The court held that public interest litigants do not have the standing to challenge criminal proceedings initiated against specified accused persons, as such matters should be raised by the accused themselves. The court emphasized that third parties cannot invoke public interest litigation to interfere in criminal cases where specific accused are involved. (Paras 766H-767A) B) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401, 482 - The court ruled that the public interest litigant lacked the standing to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the Special Judge's order. The court clarified that such challenges must be made by the accused at the appropriate time. (Paras 767C-E) C) Suo Moto Cognizance - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401, 482 - The court found that the High Court's suo moto action in taking cognizance of the FIR was not sustainable, as it was based on flawed reasoning. The court quashed the show cause notice issued by the High Court to the CBI and the State. (Paras 767H-768A) D) Proceedings Related to FIR - The court held that all proceedings initiated in pursuance of the FIR dated 22.1.90 remain unaffected and can proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 768D-E)
Issue of Consideration
Whether public interest litigation was maintainable in the context of a criminal case against specified accused persons.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, and 309 of 1991, and Writ Petition No. 114 of 1991. It allowed Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1991 filed by the Union of India and CBI, quashing the show cause notice issued by the High Court and upholding the legality of the ongoing proceedings related to the FIR.
Law Points
- Public interest litigation
- locus standi
- revisional jurisdiction
- criminal conspiracy
- maintainability
