- (1.)In the course of hearing on the scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short "2003 Act), particularly Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "D.S.P.E. Act"), Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) handed over a written note. Besides the legal arguments submitted in the note, it is stated in paragraph 11 that OBI is ready to submit report/closure of all cases to this Court with copy to Central Vigilance Commission (C.V.C.) and C.V.C. may in turn can give its comments to this Court. However, this may not be treated as precedent for C.B.I. Mr. Amrendra Sharan submits orally that by the expression "court cases" in para 11 is meant for closure of preliminary enquiries. He further submits that till date, there are 20 matters where the Inquiry Officers recommended regular cases but C.B.I. head office ordered otherwise. A compilation thereof was handed over by Mr. Amrendra Sharan to us in the Court.
In Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2012 3 SCC 104, generally described as 2G case, this Court considered the scope of Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(c) of the 2003 Act and Section 4(1) of the D.S.P.E. Act and observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

11. A combined reading of the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain's case and Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in matters relating to the investigation of offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or an offence with which a public servant specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 2003 Act is charged at the same trial and give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under Section 4(1) of the 1946 Act. However, in view of proviso to Section 8(1)(b) of the 2003 Act the Central Vigilance Commission cannot, while exercising the power of superintendence under Clause (a) or giving directions under Clause (b), direct Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner. In other words, the power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the C.B.I. in a particular manner.

12. Although, initially the C.B.I. may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after 16.12.2010 it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation. Therefore, there is no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise the further investigation being conducted by the C.B.I. and other agencies. However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to the Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case. This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act.

(2.)Following above, in paragraph 13, the Court gave the following directions:
(i) In future copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes.

(ii) Within next one week the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine the report(s) and send their observations/suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with the report(s) of the C.B.I. and other investigating agencies.

(3.)Having regard to all aspects of the matter, particularly that the investigation into the allocation of coal blocks is conducted by the C.B.I. and being monitored by this Court and that there are matters where the Inquiry Officers have recommended regular cases to be filed on conclusion of preliminary enquiries but C.B.I. head office has ordered otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that if the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioners appointed under Section 3(2) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 are requested to render assistance to this Court, then that may facilitate this Court in effectively monitoring the investigation being conducted by C.B.I..