Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (crl.) 197-198 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Rajiv Ranjan Singh ’Lalan’ & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Union of India & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2006
BENCH:
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
I had the privilege of perusing the judgment proposed by
my learned Brother - Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
While respectfully concurring with the conclusion arrived by
the learned Judge, I would like to add the following few
paragraphs:-
The first petitioner is a Member of Parliament and the
second petitioner is the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar. The
above writ petition, ostensibly in public interest, has been filed
by them for the following relief:
a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction monitoring
the conduct of the trials relating to the fodder scam case
proceeding against respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the State
of Bihar & State of Jharkhand;
b. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the Director, CBI to reinstate the prosecutors who were
handling the cases in the Trial Court and the High
Court and directing that no prosecutor or any CBI
officer attached with the investigation and the trial of
these scam cases should be removed, harassed or
victimized for discharging their duties, without specific
orders from this Hon’ble Court;
c. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the Director, CBI to provide the logistics and ensure
that it is represented by at least one Inspector in each of
the 7 courts by Special Judge, CBI in the State of
Jharkhand which is trying the fodder scam cases so
that no adjournments are sought and granted;
d. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction canceling
the bail granted to respondent nos.4 and 5
e. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondent no.1 and/or 3 to file an appeal against
the order passed by the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal"
On our direction, the Registrar General of the Patna High
Court was present in Court on 26.07.2006. He filed an
affidavit and also explained the procedure followed in the
appointment of Shri Munni Lal Paswan as a special Judge to
try the disproportionate assets cases with reference to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
records.
We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailas Vasudev
learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram
Jethmalani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.H.Parekh
and Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General and Mr.
Mohan Parasan, learned ASG for the respondents.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned
senior counsel made elaborate submissions on the question of
maintainability of the writ petitions and also submitted that
Mr. Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at
Patna for disposing off the case filed against respondent Nos. 4
and 5 and that the said Munni Lal Paswan is not a desirable
person to be posted in the said post to conduct the case. He
also requested that the Public Prosecutors who were proving to
be inconvenient to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are being
supplanted with chosen ones. Like that, Member (Judicial) in
the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Mr. R.K. Tyagi who had
been hearing the appeal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was
curiously sent on deputation and was replaced by Mr.
Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge of retirement to
head the Tribunal. Within 2 weeks, the matter was heard and
allowed in favour of the assesses. He also submitted that the
case relating to disproportionate assets before the Special
Judge, CBI is at the final stage of hearing. The Director, CBI
has started changing the prosecutors mid-way when the case
was nearing completion and that the public prosecutor who
was conducting the cases from the very beginning has been
replaced by Shri Om Shankar Singh, a retired Deputy
Superintendent of Delhi Police who has commenced law
practice recently. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 4
and 5 are deliberately protracting the trial by taking
unnecessary adjournments which, by itself, would be a ground
for cancellation of bail. He further submitted that by virtue of
the new political equations between the party in power in the
State of Bihar and at the Centre, respondent No.5 one of the
main accused in the fodder scam now has substantial
administrative control and political say in the functioning of
the Government of India and that the CBI and the Central
Board of Direct Taxes, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have become a
party in an effort to shield respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He
continued to submit that this Court shall monitor the case
since the accused are using state machinery to block the
judicial process and subvert the trial and dilatory tactics being
adopted by the accused to delay the trial on one pretext or the
other. He also submitted that the prosecutors or investigators
connected with the fodder scam matters in the State of Bihar
who have till date been discharging their functions in the trial
Court should not be disturbed, replaced or sidelined.
Mr. Rohatgi, in support of his contentions, invited our
attention to the various documents, annexures, income-tax
records and the paperbooks.
Appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. Ram
Jethmalani, learned senior counsel argued that the petition
had been filed only to achieve personal or political gain, no
case had been made out for the cancellation of bail to Mr. Lalu
Prasad Yadav and his wife and this court should not monitor
the trial as it would send wrong signals. He also cited many
decisions with regard to the maintainability of the writ
petitions at the instance of practicing politicians. He sought
dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.
Appearing for the CBI, learned Solicitor General G.E.
Vahanwati denied point by point the allegations of the
petitioners made in their pleadings with reference to various
documents and records and proved to our satisfaction that the
statements made by the petitioners are not true and correct
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
and have been made with an ulterior motive. Learned Solicitor
General further submitted that there had been no interference
by Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav or his wife in any of the matters
whether in the appointment of Judges or in the change of the
prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the
income-tax cases. The learned Solicitor General cited T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) vs. Union of India and
Others, 2006 (5) SCC 28 (Hon. Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., Arijit
Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.) and submitted that howsoever
genuine a case brought before the Court by a public interest
litigant maybe, the Court has to decline its examination at the
behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant
and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt and that no
trust can be placed by the Court on a mala fide applicant in
public interest litigation. Learned Solicitor General submitted
now it is time to give a severe warning and sound alert since
these are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by
every public interest litigant. He also cited paras 25 and 26 in
support of the contention that the writ petition is not
maintainable at the instance of the political rivals.
Mr. Ram Jethmalani in regard to the maintainability of
the writ petition cited the following decisions:
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4
SCC 305 (2 Judges) para 109.
"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will
alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to
wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person
for personal gain or private profit or political motive or
any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious
petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court
for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves
rejection at the threshold."
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 (Hon. Arijit Pasayat and Hon.
S.H.Kapadia, JJ) and invited our attention to para 4,5,9,10,12
and 14.
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC
349 para 12
"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens.
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.
It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong
or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded
on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must
be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of
the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations. Some persons with vested interest
indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often
they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to
be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in
appropriate cases, with exemplary costs."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Another, 1981
(Supp) SCC 87 (7 Judges) para 24
"24. But we must be careful to see that the member of
the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this
kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or
private profit or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. The Court must not allow its process to
be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate
administrative action or to gain a political objective.
Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups
who could not achieve their aims through the
administrative process" and we might add, through the
political process, "may try to use the Courts to further
their aims". These are some of the dangers in public
interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to
avoid. It is also necessary for the Court to bear in mind
that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and
justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the
State or a public authority that is justiciable. The Court
must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits
of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are
reserved to the Executive and the Legislature by the
Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the Court to
deal with public interest litigation because it is a new
jurisprudence which the Court is evolving, a
jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship
and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are
expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines
which will change the complexion of the law and which
were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are
beginning to be born."
Mr. Rohatgi submitted that this Court should monitor
the conduct of the trial relating to the fodder scam cases
against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Union of India and Others vs. Sushil Kumar Modi
and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 661 (3 Judges) para 6
"6. This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is
necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been
doubted in similar cases dealt with by this Court. It was made clear
by this Court in the very first case, namely Vineet Narain vs. Union
of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199 that once a charge-sheet is filed in the
competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of
monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making the CBI and
other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of
investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and
thereafter it is only the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which
is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused,
including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. We make this observation only to
reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter
may survive. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the
High Court dealing primarily with this aspect cannot be sustained."
(emphasis supplied)
It is thus clear from the above judgment that once a
charge-sheet is filed in the competent Court after completion
of the investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for
the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative
agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into
offences concerned comes to an end and thereafter, it is only
the Court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal
with all matters relating to the trial of the accused including
matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8).
We respectfully agree with the above view expressed by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
this Court. In our view, monitoring of pending trial is
subversion of criminal law as it stands to mean that the Court
behind the back of the accused is entering into a dialogue with
the investigating agency. Therefore, there can be no
monitoring, after the charge sheet is filed.
This Court issued a direction on 22.02.2005 to the
President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a
detailed report in regard to the allegations made by the
petitioners. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the
President of ITAT filed a detailed report dated 09.03.2005. A
perusal of which shows that there is not an iota of truth in the
allegation and all the aforesaid averments are completely
baseless. As noticed earlier, certain allegations were made
against Mr. R.K.Tyagi and Mr. Mohanarajan whom, according
to the petitioners, were due for retirement was appointed to
head the Tribunal. It was further stated that on 02.07.2004
Mr. R.K.Tyagi who had been hearing the appeal of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 was sent on deputation for 2 weeks and was
replaced by Mr. Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge
of the retirement to head the Tribunal and that the said
Mohanarajan picked up only the cases pertaining to
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and heard the matter and allowed in
favour of the assesses and that no appeal has been filed
against the said order.
On 22.02.2005, an order was passed by this Court
directing the Union of India to produce before this Court the
proposal of CBI dated 20.07.2004 and the entire file including
notations pertaining to the appointment of Mr. Uma Shankar
Sharma as prosecutor. The President, ITAT was directed to
send to this Court all papers pertaining to constitution of the
Bench of Mr. Mohanarajan and Mr. M.K. Sarkar and also to
sent copies/order sheets of ITA Nos. 233-237 of 2000 etc. etc.
The President, ITAT was directed to state whether Mr.
R.K.Tyagi was sent on deputation for two weeks during the
period the other two persons were appointed and if so why and
on whose behalf he was sent on deputation.
On 09.03.2005, Mr. Vimal Gandhi, President, ITAT
submitted his report. Flash figures of investigation, disposal
and dependency of appeals for the month of April, 2004 and
the position as on 01.05.2004 with reference to the various
benches in the country was furnished (Annexure-2). It is seen
from the report that Mr. D.K. Tyagi, JM, Patna had left India
without obtaining permission as required under the rules and
he was accordingly issued a show cause notice to explain
about the acts of indiscipline. This was done in early June.
Mr. Tyagi also explained the circumstances under which he
had gone abroad etc. The President acceded to his request on
compassionate grounds and permitted him to remain in Delhi
without any T.A. D.A. for 1 month from June, 21 onwards.
The President, ITAT, therefore, has stated that it is not correct
to suggest that Tyagi was shunted out of Patna by him.
Insofar as Mohanarajan is concerned, the President has
explained the position with regard to Mohanarajan and M.K.
Sarkar. He said Mr. Mohanarajan joined the Tribunal as
Judicial Member in November, 1995 and posted at Jabalpur,
Chennai, Patna and Bangalore and he served in Patna from
02.09.2002 onwards till he was transferred to Bangalore in
March, 2003. He is sobre in nature and that he is to retire on
06.11.2009 and he had never sat with Mr. Sarkar earlier.
When Mr. Agarwal’s inability to tour Patna was made known
to the President in Bangalore, Mohanarajan’s name came to
his mind as an appropriate person to replace Mr. D.K. Agrawal
and he was accordingly directed to camp at Patna in June,
2004 and that the camp was organized accordingly. Insofar as
Mr. M.K.Sarkar is concerned, he before joining the Appellate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
Tribunal Mr. Sarkar was asked managed to Patna and other
Benches on camp till regular members were available as
pendency at Kolkata was also low. The details of tour of
Sarkar to Patna in 2004 has also been furnished.
The learned Solicitor General then invited our attention
to Annexure-7 filed along with the report of the President,
ITAT. Respondent No.4 \026 Mr. Lalu Prasad, by his letter dated
15.10.2003, addressed a letter to the President, ITAT, New
Delhi requesting for transfer of appeals filed before Patna
Bench of the Tribunal to Delhi Bench in his case. On
17.10.2003, the President made a note on the said letter to
call for comments/objections, if any, from the
Department/Patna Bench by fax. Mr. Lalu Prasad has stated
in the said letter that since he is elected as a Member of Rajya
Sabha and performed duties as a Member of Rajya Sabha he
has to be present in Delhi and, therefore, the appeals may be
transferred from Patna to Delhi Bench. By annexure-8, the
Patna Bench gave its response on 31.12.2003 stating that the
legal aspect of the matter was being examined and that a final
report will follow soon. By annexure-9 dated 08.01.2004, the
Directorate General of Income-tax Patna addressed a letter to
Assistant Registrar, ITAT Patna Bench as to whether
constituting a special Bench for early disposal of the appeals
of Shri Lalu Prasad. Annexure-9 was in reply to the ITAT
Patna Bench letter dated 11.11.2003 and during that time the
present Government was not in power. By Annexure-10 the
DGIT by their letter dated 23.04.2004 stated that it would not
be possible to agree to transfer the appeals of Mr. Lalu Prasad
from ITAT, Patna Bench to ITAT, Delhi Bench and it may be
worthwhile to consider constituting a special Bench for early
disposal of these appeals. It is seen from annexure-12 dated
11.03.2004 signed by M.A. Bakshi, V.P. ITAT, Chandigarh
Zone that it may not be necessary to constitute a special
Bench for disposal of the appeals relating to Mr. Lalu Prasad.
In regard to the prayer for cancellation of the bail at the
instance of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the said
request cannot at all be countenanced. Our attention was
drawn to order dated 14.07.2003 passed by this Court which
reads thus:
"We have been extending bail from time to time for a
period of six months in order to monitor the trial. In
our view, it is not now necessary to do so any further.
We, therefore, order that the bail which has been
granted by this Court will continue for the duration of
the case on the same terms and conditions. We clarify
that it will be open to the C.B.I to apply for cancellation
of bail in accordance with law in this court. Further, if
it is found that the petitioner is deliberately protracting
the trial or taking unnecessary adjournments then that
by itself would be a ground for cancellation of bail."
Mr. Rohatgi submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are
interfering with the cause of justice so far as conduct of the
trial and IT proceedings are concerned and, therefore, the bail
granted to them is liable to be cancelled. This submission has
no merits in view of the arguments advanced by learned
Solicitor General inviting our attention to the various
documents and annexures etc. to the effect that the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have never interfered with the
conduct of trail or with the IT proceedings. It is stated that
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are deliberately protracting the trial
by taking unnecessary adjournments. Then that itself would
be a ground for cancellation of bail. This argument has no
substance. It is a fact that the matter was adjourned at the
instance of the defence on various occasions. Court itself has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
adjourned the matter for various reasons. We, therefore,
cannot hold that the delay is solely attributable to respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 which, in our opinion, cannot be a ground for
cancellation of bail when it is not proved that any of the bail
conditions has been violated. The delay is attributable to both
the prosecution and the defence and also to the Court.
Therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held responsible
for the delay.
Mr. Rohatgi argued that Munni Lal Paswan should be
changed from the present place and some other officer should
be posted there. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, at the time of hearing,
explained to this Court as to how and under what
circumstances the earlier incumbent of the office - Mr.
Yogendra Prasad was shifted at his own request and that how
Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at Patna
for the conduct of the matters. We summoned the Registrar
General of Patna High Court on 26.07.2006. The Registrar
General Madhusudhan Singh has also filed an affidavit in
regard to the three queries raised by us. The Registrar
General explained to this Court in regard to the practice in the
High Court of Patna and how the matter is placed before the
Standing Committee and the remarks of the inspecting Judges
and the guard files which are maintained separately of each
officers which were made available to the Standing Committee.
The said fact also finds mention in the decision dated
22.06.2005 of the Standing Committee. In regard to query
No.3 the Registrar has submitted as follows:-
"That in regard to Query No.3 of this Hon’ble Court as
mentioned in the order dated 26.7.2006, I respectfully
say and submit that the remarks of the Hon’ble
Inspecting Judge in case of Shri Jawahar Prasad
Ratnesh was of the year 1985, 1986-87, 1988, 2001,
2003 and 2005 (and remarks recorded by P.O.,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna in 1998). In respect of Shri
Ram Niwas Prasad, the remarks recorded by the Hon’ble
Inspecting Judge was of 1985, 1986, 1997 and 2002.
As regards Shri Munni Lal Paswan, the remarks
recorded by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge was of 1985
and 1990 and by Vice-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal,
Patna Bench in 1997."
We have perused the records submitted by the High
Court in regard to the officers including Munni Lal Paswan.
There is absolutely no adverse entry against Munni Lal
Paswan and that poor record if any is not the record of
integrity and that no gradation has been given to officers after
1997 onwards including Paswan.
We have perused the proceedings of the meetings of the
Standing Committee held on 22.06.2005 in the chambers of
the Hon’ble Chief Justice which reads thus:
Proceedings of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 22nd June, 2005 in the
Chambers of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice:
Agenda Decision
To consider the matter regarding Having considered the relevant service
Postings if three Special Judges at records of the officers concerned and also
Patna for C.B.I. (Fodder Scam taking into consideration the fact that
Cases), C.B.I. (South Bihar) and no allegation petition has been recieved
Vigilance Cases(Court No.1) in against Sri Muni Lal Paswan, Additional
Place of S/Shri Yogendra Prasad, District Judge, Saharsa. It is resolved tha
t
Mungeshwar Sahoo and Jitendra let him (Sri Muni Lal Paswan) be posted
Mohan Sharma, respectively(P.F. as Special Judge for C.B.I. (Fodder Scam
XXVII-5-98) Cases) at Patna. It is further resolved upo
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
n
consideration of the relevant service record
s
Of the officers concerned that Sri J.P.
Ratnesh, Additional District Judge, Patna, be
posted as Special Judge, C.B.I. (South
Bihar) and Sri Ram Niwas Prasad,
Additional District Judge, Patna as Special
Judge for Vigilance Case (Court No.1).
In view of the urgency of the matter, the
office is directed to take necessary steps for
issue of notification immediately.
Sd/- Nagendra Rai, Actg, C.J.
Sd/- I.P.Singh, J.A.D. 1
Sd/- R.N. Prasad, J.A.D. II
Sd/- Barin Ghosh, J.
Sd/- M.L. Visa, J.
Sd/- Rajendra Prasad,J."
It is thus seen from the above that all the relevant service
records of the officers concerned including Munni Lal Paswan
was placed before the Standing Committee which took into
consideration the fact that no allegation petition has been
received against Munni Lal Paswan, Addl. District Judge. It
was resolved that Munni Lal Paswan be posted as Special
Judge, CBI Fodder scam cases at Patna. The Registrar
General had also stated at the time of hearing that the
resolution of the Standing Committee was also placed before
the Full Court which also approved the same.
Article 233 of the Constitution of India deals with
subordinate Courts. The appointment of persons, posting and
promotion of District Judges in any State shall be made by the
Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Likewise,
under Article 235 the control over district courts and courts
subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of
and the grant of leave to persons belonging to judicial service
of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District
Judge shall be vested in the High Court.
The appointment of lawyers is the prerogative of the
Government and the prosecuting agency. The petitioners are
trying to find fault with every attempt with every steps taken.
Cases like this the delay is inevitable.
It is also settled law that appointment of advocates,
public prosecutors etc. is the prerogative of the government in
power and court has no role to play.
In the above case, the Standing Committee has taken a
decision to appoint Munni Lal Paswan and other officers after
scrutinizing the records, ACRs etc. in accordance with Article
233 and 235 of the Constitution of India which is the
prerogative right of the Standing Committee and the High
Court and when a decision is taken it is not for this Court to
scrutinize the correctness of the decision that too at the
instance of third parties.
In regard to the prayer of the petitioner to direct the
Government of India to file the appeal in the income-tax
matters, we are of the opinion that the said prayer also cannot
at all be countenanced. In this regard, Section 260 A(1) and
(2)(a) may be referred to which reads as under:
"260A. Appeal to High Court \026 (1) An appeal shall lie to
the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the
Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
(2) The Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or an
assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such
appeal under the sub-section shall be \026
(a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from
the date on which the order appealed against
is received by the assessee or the Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner;
(b)
(c) "
In this regard, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance may be usefully referred to. It is stated in the said
counter affidavit that the matter has been fully considered and
legal opinion was sought by BCIT investigation, Patna and that
the opinion of the learned ASG was received stating that there
is no substantial question of law for filing an appeal and that
the consideration of this aspect had been done properly and
independently and there have been no extraneous
consideration.
This apart, another affidavit was filed by Mr. L.K.Sighvi,
the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (VIII), New Delhi para 1
"I was the Director General IT (Inv.), Patna during the relevant
period when decision was taken regarding filing of appeals
pertaining to the ITAT orders in the cases of Smt. Rabri Devi
and Shri. Lalu Prasad Yadav before the Hon’ble High Court at
Patna. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the present petition was pending before this
Hon’ble Court, I thought it fit to refer the matter to the CBDT
for consideration and seeking opinion from the Ministry of
Law. The CBDT and the Ministry of Finance obtained the
opinion of the Ministry of Law to the effect that no substantial
questions of law arose out of the judgments of the ITAT in the
cases of Smt. Rabri Devi and Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav for filing
appeals before the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly,
instructions were issued by me that appeals would not be
filed in respect of these cases.
It is thus seen that the Government of India has taken
into consideration the views of the Ministry of Law, Ministry of
Finance to the effect that no substantial questions of law arise
out of the judgments of the ITAT in the case of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 for filing appeals before the High Court and that
instructions were issued that appeals would not be filed in
respect of those cases.
Certain allegations have been made against CBDT and
the Public Prosecutors, Members of the Income-tax Tribunal
etc. None of them were made parties before us. Therefore, the
allegations made against them are one-sided and cannot be
looked into at all. We cannot also say that all these
authorities have acted in a mala fide manner.
In our opinion, public interest litigation meant for the
benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for the benefit of
those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access
to the Court. We also say that PILs are not meant to advance
the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of
a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle. In our
opinion, the liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except
in accordance with the established procedure of law under the
Constitution criminal procedure and other cognate statutes.
We are also of the opinion that PIL is totally foreign to pending
criminal proceedings. The records placed before us would only
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
go to show that respondent No.4 had no hand in any of these
matters whether in the appointment of judges or in the change
of the prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the
income tax cases.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that both the writ
petitions have no merit and is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly we do so.
In the circumstances, we order no costs. Before
concluding, we say that the petitioners are waging a political
battle against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through the medium of
Public Interest Litigation. The venue for political battle, in our
opinion, can never be this Court by filing a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
27952