Supreme Court Closes Writ Proceedings Against Government Agencies After Chargesheets Filed in Three Corruption Cases. Held that once chargesheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed, the competent court alone had jurisdiction to deal with the case on merits while directing expeditious trial within three months in view of Article 21.

Case Note & Summary

This matter arose as a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation, patterned after the earlier proceedings in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 340-343 of 1993. The petitioner sought to command the Union of India and government agencies to perform their legal duty to investigate accusations of crime against persons irrespective of their position and status, and to file chargesheets in competent courts where a prima facie case was made out. The background concerned concerns about the impartial functioning of government agencies, including the Revenue Secretary, Director of CBI, and Delhi Police, in relation to high-profile allegations. The Supreme Court had previously passed orders in the Vineet Narain matter directing the mode of functioning of all officials, and it was made clear at the outset of this proceeding that those orders applied equally here. The learned Attorney General assured the Court that officials were functioning in accordance with those orders. On 30-01-1996, the Court passed an order reported in 1996 (2) SCC 199, emphasizing that all government agencies must discharge their functions bearing in mind equality and rule of law, and investigation into every accusation against every person must be conducted expeditiously irrespective of status; the Court was not concerned with merits but only with performance of legal duty. After that, reports were submitted that chargesheets had been filed by the CBI in two cases, namely the St Kitts' Forgery Case and the Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating Case, and by the Delhi Police in the Rajendra Jain case, all under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court observed that once a chargesheet is filed, the competent court alone is to deal with the case on merits, including any direction for further investigation or proceeding against other persons, according to the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the purpose of the writ proceeding was served in respect of these three cases, and no further action was called for in this proceeding for them. The proceeding was to continue only for the remaining incomplete matters. The Court directed the concerned courts to proceed entirely in accordance with law, without any impression of a parallel proceeding pending in the Supreme Court, and to ensure utmost expedition in trial, preferably concluding within three months of commencement, unless prevented by dilatory tactics of the accused. This direction was treated as a requirement of speedy trial read into Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also cautioned that publicity should not dilute the essentials of a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved at trial must be maintained. It reiterated that any observations made by the Supreme Court for the purpose of the pending proceedings had no bearing on the merits of the accusation and must not influence the trial. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned court in each of the three cases. The judgment did not decide the merits of any accusation and left the trial courts to proceed independently.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court noted that chargesheets had been filed by CBI in St Kitts' Forgery Case and Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating Case, and by Delhi Police in Rajendra Jain case under Section 173 CrPC. It held that the purpose of the writ proceeding was served in these three cases and closed proceedings in respect of them, while continuing for remaining incomplete matters. It directed the concerned courts to proceed entirely in accordance with law without being influenced by any parallel proceeding and to conclude trials expeditiously, preferably within three months of commencement, unless prevented by dilatory tactics of accused. It emphasized fairness, presumption of innocence, and that observations made in this proceeding had no bearing on merits.

Law Points