'Prayer seeking direction for CBI probe should not be granted on mere asking': SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday said that prayer seeking direction for the probe of an alleged offence by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should not be granted on "mere asking".

The apex court noted that the power to transfer an investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances".

"It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high government officials or influential persons, prays before a court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking," a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and J B Pardiwala said.

The bench made these observations in its 94-page verdict by which it dismissed with an "exemplary" cost of Rs five lakh a plea seeking a CBI probe into the purported massacre of some tribals, allegedly by security forces, in Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district in 2009.

The top court observed in an appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the court may be justified to handover the probe to an independent agency like the CBI.

It said the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution regarding the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct an investigation must be exercised with "great caution" as underlined by the apex court in one of its earlier verdict.

The bench said by now, it is well settled that even after the filing of the charge sheet, the court is empowered in an appropriate case to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI.

"We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment," it said.

The bench noted the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties.

It observed that the prime concern and endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved, and competent investigating agency.

Referring to a previous verdict of the apex court, the bench noted that it was reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases".

"One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is 'imperative' to retain 'public confidence in the impartial working of the state agencies.'

This observation must be read with the observations made by the constitution bench in the case of "Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal".

"That mere allegation against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation," it said.

The bench, while referring to another previous verdict, said it has been held by this court that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency.

"We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice," it said.

"The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used 'sparingly' and only 'in exceptional circumstances," it said.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday said that prayer seeking direction for the probe of an alleged offence by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should not be granted on "mere asking". The apex court noted that the power to transfer an investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances". "It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high government officials or influential persons, prays before a court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking," a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and J B Pardiwala said. The bench made these observations in its 94-page verdict by which it dismissed with an "exemplary" cost of Rs five lakh a plea seeking a CBI probe into the purported massacre of some tribals, allegedly by security forces, in Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district in 2009. The top court observed in an appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the court may be justified to handover the probe to an independent agency like the CBI. It said the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution regarding the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct an investigation must be exercised with "great caution" as underlined by the apex court in one of its earlier verdict. The bench said by now, it is well settled that even after the filing of the charge sheet, the court is empowered in an appropriate case to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. "We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment," it said. The bench noted the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. It observed that the prime concern and endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved, and competent investigating agency. Referring to a previous verdict of the apex court, the bench noted that it was reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". "One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is 'imperative' to retain 'public confidence in the impartial working of the state agencies.' This observation must be read with the observations made by the constitution bench in the case of "Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal". "That mere allegation against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation," it said. The bench, while referring to another previous verdict, said it has been held by this court that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. "We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice," it said. "The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used 'sparingly' and only 'in exceptional circumstances," it said.