SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 06,2014

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SYED QASIM RAZVI V. STATE OF HYDERABAD AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
V.C. SHUKLA V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [REFERRED TO]
V.C. SHUKLA V. STATE THROUGH CBI [REFERRED TO]
N B KHARE VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
KATHI RANING RAWAT VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
LACHMANDAS KEWALRAM VS. STATE OF BOMBAY HABEEB MOHAMIMD [REFERRED TO]
HABEEB MOHAMED PATITIONER VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH BAJORIA S O RAMJIDAS BAJORIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
V M SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MATAJOG DOBEY NAND RAM AGARWALA VS. H C BHARI:H C BHARI [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR VS. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
C I EMDEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S C JAISINGHANI C K TIKKU MOHAN CHANDRA JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P SIRAJUDDIN VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MANHAR LAL BHOGILAL SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PATEL LALJIBHAI SOMABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMBICA MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S K KALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [REFERRED TO]
S P BHATNAGAR A S KRISHNASWAMY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA MOHAMMAD PAGARKAR MORESHWAR HARI MAHATME VS. STATE UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU :STATE UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. J A C SALDANHA:J A C SALDANHA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R S NAYAK PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT VS. A R ANTULAY:ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KRIPALU SHANKAR [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K VEERASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
G C KANUNGO D C ROUTRAY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
C CHENGA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGA PEOPLES MOVEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VINEETNARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. TRAVANCORE CHEMICALS AND MANUFACTURING CO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NO 664950 IM HAVILLAR CLERK SC BAGARI [REFERRED TO]
J JAYALALITHA VS. U O I [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA SURESH JUMANI VS. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FORFEITED PROPERTY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V VASUDEVA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DISTT REGISTRAR and COLLECTOR VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL SINGH MARWAH VS. MEENAKSHI MARWAH [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP NAYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
I R COELHO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R GANDHI PRESIDENT MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K T PLANTATION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. MANMOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BALAKRISHNA DATTATRYA KUMBHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.A.MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

C.B.I. VS. R.R. KISHORE [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ MEENA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT GUPTA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-196] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU BAHUGUNA VS. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(UTN)-2020-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA RAM NAUTIYAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SHARMA VS. SIKKIM UNIVERSITY [LAWS(SIK)-2021-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(SIK)-2017-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT. RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
NAGALAND TRIBES COUNCIL (NTC) VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2016-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT MANOHAR JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. TREE AUTHORITY, THANE AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-206] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAN JAIN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2022-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATI SWAMIJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA PARENTS ASSOCIATION VS. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
YENGKHOM JIVAN SINGH VS. MANIPUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
K SEKAR VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINSINH INDRASINH MAHIDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-273] [REFERRED TO]
J. GEETHA VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
JAN HITAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH PUSHKAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT LODHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) AND ORS. VS. P.B. GOPI AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-141] [REFERRED TO]
P.A.JOSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2024-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL BHARTIA AND ORS. VS. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU RATHOR VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
M. P. BUS OPERATOR ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
RATNESH VERMA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2021-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
VENUGOPAL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY KUMAR VS. SUJIT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
R P S PANWAR VS. C B I [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-540] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS PVT LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ MEENA & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-284] [REFERRED]
MOHD RIZWAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY BASIC EDUCATION, LKO & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
S. L. MEENA VS. DELHI JAL BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
ROUNAK ALI HAZARIKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB KUMAR DEKA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
ELIAS AHMED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2023-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
P CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
JANHIT ABHIYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. AJIT CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPA SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
A. ASUVATHAMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-169] [REFERRED TO]
THE JOINT REGISTRAR/ADMINISTRATOR, M/S. TIRUTHANI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. P. SIVA KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
P.PUGALENTHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-68] [REFERRED]
SRI ADINATH TRADERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
RESHAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR DIWAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VASANTRAO DESHMUKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH EAPPEN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR BORAH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-311] [REFERRED TO]
VENUGOPAL V VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-158] [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J JAYALALITHAA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-159] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VISHNOI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. MEENA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRASINH JAYSINH KUSHVAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDANANDA URS B.G. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-531] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDANANDA URS B.G. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-531] [REFERRED TO]
XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-541] [REFERRED TO]
MANGO MEADOWS AGRICULTURAL PLEASURE LAND PVT.LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-310] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANLAL RAJMAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
S.D. SHARMA VS. M.P. RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM VIKAS NIGAM LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2022-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN MUSIC COMPANIES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-281] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAYAN VISHWAKARMA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAYAN VISHWAKARMA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
RIT FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-366] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-259] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SHARMILA SANDESH GHUGE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. VS. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
S.SESHACHALAM VS. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH KASWA AND ORS. VS. CBI AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
DULARI DEVI & ORS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-361] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARA BHAT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. XXXX / P.GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
NAIR SMITA VINU & 17 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-287] [REFERRED]
VINAY MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2021-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR PATHAK VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-134] [REFERRED]
LAIKANGBAM INGOTOMBI SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2014-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON VS. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-279] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-458] [REFERRED TO]
AMBRISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUNIL TRIPATHI [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBALA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ATUL SHUKLA [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
K ANBAZHAGAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
G.VASUDEVAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-147] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR GEHLOT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
HARVINDER KAUR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NAZRUL ISLAM VS. BASUDEB BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2022-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAVKUMAR SUDARSHANKUMAR ARORA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-10-357] [REFERRED TO]
DHANABHAI NARSINHBHAI MITHAPARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-7-217] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-297] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPALDAN PRAKASHDAN GADHVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
GAZETTED HEADMASTERS PRADESHIK SANGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-188] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DASS VS. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
SCHWING STETTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES EZHILAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL & BAR (FL.3) ASSOCIATION OF TAMIL NADU (HOBAT) VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-268] [REFERRED TO]
A.V. BELLARMIN AND ORS. VS. V. SANTHAKUMARAN NAIR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR PAUL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
YASH PRAMESH RANA OF MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN KUMAR NEOG VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL KANWAR AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-291] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMED ASLAM O.K. VS. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN PAL SAINI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2024-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
CBI VS. R.R. KISHORE [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
NEERA YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
IVATURI VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VISHNOI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
MIRTUNJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR KULIYAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2021-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
G SUNDARRAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
BINOY VISWAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA MUKESH RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-647] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL SINGH VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA JHA D/O SHRI BALBIR JHA R/O D VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE VIGILANCE [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR SARASWAT VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-115] [REFERRED]
DINESH KUMAR TIWARI VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
A.BASHEERKUTTY VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-275] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH CHANDULAL SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJABHAI MERKHIBHAI BHARAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-307] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU SURANA VS. SUNIL ARORA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAL TANUJ VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
S C JAIN VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-12-70] [REFERRED]
PREMLATA KUSHWAH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-265] [REFERRED TO]
DR. TAHIRALI NAJMI VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. PARASHAR VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. PARASHAR VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
OBC ADVOCATE WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2023-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
M.KATHIRVEL VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION [LAWS(MAD)-2024-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI MEIHOUBAM RAKESH SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
J.P. RENIN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-333] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH BABU VS. U. P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-172] [REFERRED TO]
NIKO RESOURCES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-186] [REFERRED TO]
ADANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
AATISHA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
NAZRUL ISLAM VS. BASUDEB BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2022-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. GOPALAKRISHANA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
AFTAB AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY HOME AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-282] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR BHOLE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LTD. & OTHERS VS. PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA & ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYENDRA MAHILANE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-3-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, 'the DSPE Act'), which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, reads as under:
"Section 6-A. Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation.- (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to-

(a) the employees of the Central Government of the Level of Joint Secretary and above; and

(b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)."

(2.)The constitutional validity of Section 6-A is in issue in these two writ petitions, both filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Since Section 6-A came to be inserted by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (Act 45 of 2003), the constitutional validity of Section 26(c) has also been raised. It is not necessary to independently refer to Section 26(c). Our reference to Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, wherever necessary, shall be treated as reference to Section 26(c) of the Act 45 of 2003 as well.
Reference to the Constitution Bench

(3.)On February 4, 2005 when these petitions came up for consideration, the Bench thought that these matters deserved to be heard by the larger Bench. The full text of the reference order is as follows:
"In these petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, "the Act"). This section was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 12-9-2003. It, inter alia, provides for obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government for conduct of any inquiry or investigation for any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 where allegations relate to officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. Before insertion of Section 6-A in the Act, the requirement to obtain prior approval of the Central Government was contained in a directive known as "Single Directive" issued by the Government. The Single Directive was a consolidated set of instructions issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by various Ministries/Departments regarding modalities of initiating an inquiry or registering a case against certain categories of civil servants. The said directive was stated to have been issued to protect decision-making-level officers from the threat and ignominy of malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations and to give protection to officers at the decision-making level and to relieve them of the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions. It was said that absence of such protection to them could adversely affect the efficiency and efficacy of these institutions because of the tendency of such officers to avoid taking any decisions which could later lead to harassment by any malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations.

2. The Single Directive was quashed by this Court in a judgment delivered on 18-12-1997 (Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 1998 1 SCC 226. Within a few months after Vineet Narain judgment, by the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998 dated 25-8-1998, Section 6-A was sought to be inserted providing for the previous approval of the Central Vigilance Commission before investigation of the officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. On the intervention of this Court, this provision was deleted by issue of another Ordinance promulgated on 27-10-1998. From the date of the decision in Vineet Narain case and till insertion of Section 6-A w.e.f. 12-9-2003, there was no requirement of seeking previous approval except for a period of two months from 25-8-1998 to 27-10- 1998.

3. The validity of Section 6-A has been questioned on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned amicus curiae has contended that the impugned provision is wholly subversive of independent investigation of culpable bureaucrats and strikes at the core of rule of law as explained in Vineet Narain case and the principle of independent, unhampered, unbiased and efficient investigation. The contention is that Vineet Narain decision frames a structure by which honest officers could fearlessly enforce the criminal law and detect corruption uninfluenced by extraneous political, bureaucratic or other influences and the result of the impugned legislation is that the very group of persons, namely, high-ranking bureaucrats whose misdeeds and illegalities may have to be inquired into, would decide whether CBI should even start an inquiry or investigation against them or not. There will be no confidentiality and insulation of the investigating agency from political and bureaucratic control and influence because the approval is to be taken from the Central Government which would involve leaks and disclosures at every stage. The very nexus of the criminal-bureaucrat-politician which is subverting the whole polity would be involved in granting or refusing prior approval before an inquiry or investigation can take place. Pointing out that the essence of a police investigation is skilful inquiry and collection of material and evidence in a manner by which the potential culpable individuals are not forewarned, the submission made is that the prior sanction of the same department would result in indirectly putting to notice the officers to be investigated before commencement of investigation. Learned Senior Counsel contends that it is wholly irrational and arbitrary to protect highly-placed public servants from inquiry or investigation in the light of the conditions prevailing in the country and the corruption at high places as reflected in several judgments of this Court including that of Vineet Narain. Section 6-A of the Act is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and is liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is the submission of learned amicus curiae.

4. In support of the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned provision, besides observations made in the three-Judge Bench decision in Vineet Narain case reliance has also been placed on various decisions including S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, 1967 2 SCR 703, Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991 1 SCC 212, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 1 SCC 722 and Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 4 SCC 311 to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In Mardia Chemicals case a three-Judge Bench held Section 17(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to be unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 17(2) provides for condition of deposit of 75% of the amount before an appeal could be entertained. The condition has been held to be illusory and oppressive. Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 2 SCC 1, again a decision of a three-Judge Bench, setting aside the decision of the High Court which upheld the provisions of Sections 5(10)(b), 11(1) and 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 pertaining to standard rent in petitions where the constitutional validity of those provisions was challenged on the ground of the same being arbitrary, unreasonable and consequently ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, has come to the conclusion that the said provisions are arbitrary and unreasonable.

5. Learned Solicitor General, on the other hand, though very fairly admitting that the nexus between criminals and some elements of establishment including politicians and various sections of bureaucracy has increased and also that there is a disturbing increase in the level of corruption and these problems need to be addressed, infractions of the law need to be investigated, investigations have to be conducted quickly and effectively without any interference and the investigative agencies should be allowed to function without any interference of any kind whatsoever and that they have to be insulated from any extraneous influences of any kind, contends that a legislation cannot be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness as such a ground is available only to quash executive action and orders. Further contention is that even a delegated legislation cannot be quashed on the ground of mere arbitrariness and even for quashing such a legislation, manifest arbitrariness is the requirement of law. In support, reliance has been placed on observations made in a three-Judge Bench decision in State of A.P.. v. McDowell & Co., 1996 3 SCC 709 that no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable and observations made in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 1996 10 SCC 304 that delegated legislation can be struck down only if there is manifest arbitrariness.

6. In short, the moot question is whether arbitrariness and unreasonableness or manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14 of the Constitution are available or not as grounds to invalidate a legislation. Both counsel have placed reliance on observations made in decisions rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges.

7. Further contention of learned Solicitor General is that the conclusion drawn in Vineet Narain case is erroneous that the Constitution Bench decision in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 3 SCC 655 is not an authority for the proposition that in the case of high officials, requirement of prior permission/sanction from a higher officer or Head of the Department is permissible, the submission is that conclusion reached in para 34 of Vineet Narain decision runs contrary to observations and findings contained in para 28 of Veeraswami case.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the matters deserve to be heard by a larger Bench, subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India."

Background of Section 6-A



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.