ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,, BANGALOREversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

                                               [2013) 10 S.C.R. 813-

              ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,, BANGALORE                                                              A
                                                 ·•         v.                     <. -

                        '     .. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..
      '   .                 (Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2013):
               "•   .       •     :   '               1.   " - •..

                . , ..•. AU~usr21,;2013 ,
                    ,·•         ,. ' " •'   •' ' '                          •'I'   'I'          .I   . : .   B
      [P. SATHASIVAM, · CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
                 AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
                                                              0



      , Constitution 'of India: 1950 - Article ,136 - CBI
    investigation,.~ Entrusting of :.prayer for :· Tenability - .Scuffle C
    between. advocates, police . and media persons and
    simultaneous violence in the City Civil Court Complex - Lathi
    charge by police· - Several persons injured - Number of
    vehicles also damaged and destroyed due to stone pelting
I   arid arson:. Over 191 cases registered,- Writ petitions before D
'   High Court - Special Investigation Team (Sl7) constituted by
    High Court to investigate into the incident - Direction of
    Supreme Court modifying the composition of SIT - lnspite of
    the modified order of Supreme Court, investigation did not
    commence due to non-fonnation of SIT.- Held: Principles laid E
    down in a Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in
    regard. to: entrusting of investigation to CBI, and the series of
    incidents in the instant case, make it clear that CBI inquiry is
    necessitated in the matter in issue, - CBI directed t'!parry out
    the investigation and submit a report before the appropriate F
    Court within six months - State/SIT to immediately hand over
    all the records pertaining to the investigation to the CBI.
                                                            : .....
                                                               ,1·,,' . •          ,/     ,·•
        On 02.03.2012, when a former Minister in· the
    Government of Kamataka was sought to be produced by                                                      G
    the CBI, Bangalore, Branch, In .the City. Civil Court
    Complex, a large crowd gathered in the court premises
    which caused a great deal of inconvenience, as a result
    of which, scuffle ensued between advocates, police and
                                                           813                                               H
   814     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A media persons and simultaneously violence broke out
  and the police resorted to lathi charge in which several
  persons got injured. A number of vehicles were also
  damaged and destroyed due to stone pelting and arson.
  Over 191 cases were registered in regard to the above
B said incident against the police, advocates, media
  persons, public etc. under various categories in various
  police stations of the City.

       Several writ petitions came to be filed before the
C High Court seeking various reliefs inter alia including
  direction to the State Government to entrust the
  investigation of the incident to the CBI. Vide order dated
  16-5-2012, the High Court con·stituted a Special
  Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into the incident
  and to conclude the same within 3 months from the date
D of the Government Notification.

       It is the grievance of the appellant-Association before
  this Court that inspite of the said order of the High Court
  dated 16-5-2012 and subsequent direction of this Court
E dated 19-10-2012 modifying the composition of SIT,
  investigation had still not commenced even after a lapse
  of one year and five months from the date of the incident.
  It was submitted that it was a fit case which the Central
  Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should investigate and an
F outer limit ought to be fixed for the same.

       Allowing the appeal and accordingly disposing off
   the connected I.A., the Court
       HELD: 1. It is unfortunate that even after the order of
G this Court dated 19.10.2012 nothing has happened. The
  constitution of the so-called SIT has not completed till
  date. tnspite of the modified order of this Court, the
  investigation is yet to commence due to non-formation
H of SIT. [Para 10] [822-B, C]
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE v. UNION 815
             OF INDIA & ORS.
      2.1. As regards entrusting the investigation to the A
 CBI, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Committee for
 Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal has laid
 down certain principles. It was held therein that a
 direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
 under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate B
 a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed
 within the territory of a State without the consent of that
 State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the
 Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of
 power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of C
 civil liberties of the citizens, the Supreme Court and the
 High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but
 also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights,
 guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of
the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. It D
was further held that insofar as the question of issuing a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid
down to decide whether or not such power should be
exercised but such an order is not to be passed as a E
matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil F
confidence in investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and G
with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the process lose
its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations. [Para 11] [822-D-G; 823-B-E]
                                                             H
    816       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A      2.2. Keeping the above principles in mind,
  considering the series of unfortunate incidents which
  occurred within the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore
  on 02.03.2012 involving members of the bar, police
  personnel, journalists and media persons and in spite of
B the specific direction by the High Court as early as on
  16.05.2012, subsequent order of this Court dated
  19.10.2012, and also of the fact that the composition of
  SIT itself has not been finalized, it is clear that the present
  case falls within the principles enunciated by the
c Constitution Bench and this Court is satisfied that CBI
  inquiry is necessitated in the matter in issue. [Para 11)
    [823~F-G]

      State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for
  Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others
D (2010) 3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979 - followed.
       3. The CBI is directed to carry out the investigation
  and submit a report before the appropriate Court having
  jurisdiction at Bangalore within a period of six months
E from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment Further
  the State/SIT is directed to immediately hand over all the
  records pertaining to the said investigation to ·the CBI.
  [Para 12) [824-B]
                        . Case Law Reference:
F
          2010 (2) SCR. 979       followed            Para
          '                   '




        CIVIL.APPELLATE Jl.JRISDICTION :Civil Appeal No.
    1159 .<>t 2013. ·
G       From'the Judgment & Order dated 16.05.2012 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 7623 of
    2012 (GM-RES).
                                  WITH
    I.A. No, 8 in C.A. ,No. 7159 of 2013..
H
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE V.· UNION 81]
             OF INDIA & ORS.
     Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG, K.K. Venugopal,. P.              A
Viswanath Shetty, K. V. Vishwanathan, Bharadwaj J. Iyengar,
Rohit Bhat, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Rajiv Nanda, Vidit Gupta,
Harleen Singh, Syed Tanweer·Ahmad,- B:V.· Bairam Dass,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy for the appearing
~~-                                                                 B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     P•. SATHASIVAM, CJI. J .LE~ave granted.

   · · ·2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order C
dated 16.05.2012 passed by'the Higti'Couft of Karnataka at
Bangalore iri WritPetition No. 7623 of 2012 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court constituted a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into the broadcasting of
certain news items by certain television channels on D
02.03.2012 regarding scuffle between advocates, police and
media persons in the premises of the City Civil Court Complex,
Bangalore.

    3. BriefFacts:                                                  E
     (a) On 02.03.2012, Shri Janarclhana Reddy, former Minister
in the Government of Karnataka was sought to be produced
by the CBI, Bangalore Branch, in the Court of 46th Additional
City Civil and Special Judge, CBI at Bangalore City Civil Court
Complex in a case which invited considerable public attention.      F
The electronic as well as the print media were in the precincts
of the Court so: as to film and make video coverage and publish
the news regardin~;rthe production of the former Minister.

      (b) A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused       G
a great deal of inconvenience, as a. result of which, scuffle
ensued betweeR advocates, police and media persons ·and
simultaneously violence broke out and the police resorted to
lathi charge in Which several persons got injured. A number of
vehicles were also damaged and destroyed due to stone pelting       H
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A and arson. Over 191 cases were registered in regard to the
  above said incident against the police, advocates, media
  persons, public etc. under various categories in various police
  stations of the City.

B        (c) On 06.03.2012, Advocates Association, Bangalore-the
    appellant herein, registered under the Karnataka Societies
    Registration Act, 1959, submitted a representation to the Chief
    Minister of Karnataka to take suitable action against the police
    atrocities committed on the advocates on 02.03.2012.
c   Subsequently, on 07.03.2012, the General Secretary of the
    appellant-Association filed a detailed complaint in the
    jurisdictional police station wherein the names of the police
    officers who were involved in the said incident were given.

        (d) On the very same day, i.e., on 07.03.2012, the
D Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order (GO) and
  appointed the Director General of Police, CID, Special Units
  & Economic Offences as the Inquiry Officer to conduct an in-
  house inquiry into the matter. On 10.03.2012, the Registrar, City
  Civil Court, Bangalore, lodged a complaint with the Ulsoorgate
E Police Station for causing damage to the property of City Civil
  Court, Bangalore which came to be registered as FIR No. 206/
  2012 under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 435 read with
  Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC')
  and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public
F Property Act, 1984 against unknown persons. On 19.03.2012,
  the Director General of Police submitted his report stating that
  the officers on bandobust failed to exercise adequate and
  proper supervisory control on the policemen while controlling
  the situation, which resulted in excesses committed by some
G of the policemen, and the police personnel responsible for
  excesses could not be easily identified.

      (e) Several writ petitions came to be filed before the High
  Court seeking various reliefs inter alia including direction to the
H State Government to entrust the investigation to the CBI. On
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE v. UNION 819
    OF INDIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
26.03.2012, the President of the appellant-Association filed an      A
affidavit in the writ petitions, viz., 7623 and 8328 of 2012
appraising the court about the dismal progress in the
investigation carried out by the police. In view of the same, on
29.03.2012 and 02.04.2012, Assistant Commissioner of Police
filed an affidavit and counter affidavit respectively stating the    B
status of the investigation. It was further stated that the State
Government has accepted the report of the Director General
of Police and he has been directed to conduct further inquiry.
Several documents, records and other details were produced
before the High Court during the course of the proceedings.          C

     (f) The High Court, by order dated 16.05.2012, constituted
a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Dr. R.K.
Raghavan, a retired Director of the CBI as Chairman and Mr.
R.K. Dutta, Director General of Police, CID, Bangalore as            D
Convenor along with other police officials to investigate into the
incident with reference to the complaints lodged by the police,
advocates as well as media against each other and to
conclude the same within 3 months from the date of the
Government Notification. In pursuance of the same, the State         E
Government issued a series of Notifications constituting and
reconstituting SIT for reasons of non-availability of officers to
be its members.

     (g) Being aggrieved of the impugned order, this appeal
has been filed by way of special leave before this Court. On         F
19.10.2012, this Court rejected the prayer of alteration of the
investigating agency and directed the SIT to commence the
investigation forthwith and submit a report within 3 months from
the date of the order. Pursuant to the same, the State
Government issued notifications dated 03.11.2012,                    G
13.11.2012 and 17.11.2012 for appointing and substituting
various officers in the SIT. On 12.12.2012, the State
Government filed an application seeking extension of 6 months'
time to investigate the case. In January, 2013, the State
                                                                     H
    820      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A   Government filed a similar application for an extension of 6
    months to submit a report.

      (h) Being aggrieved of the fact that in spite of a lapse of
  over 1 year from the date of incident, the investigation has not
B even commenced even after the orders of the High Court dated
  16.05.2012 and this Court dated 19.10.2012, the appellant-
  Association filed a contempt petition.

        (i) Interlocutory Application being No. 8 also came to be
  filed in the above said special leave petition to direct the SIT
C to hand over the investigation to the CBI in view of this Court's
  order dated 19.10.2012.

       4. Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for
  the appellant-Association, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, leamed senior
D counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Amarjit Singh
  Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union
  of India.

    Contentions:
E       5. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
  appellant-Association submitted that in spite of the fact that the
  incident occurred on 02.03.2012 and in view of the subsequent
  order of the High Court dated 16.05.2012 constituting a Special
  Investigation Team (SIT) and subsequent direction of this Court
F dated 19.10.2012 modifying the composition of SIT, the fact
  remains that till this moment, nothing has turned down, in fact,
  the investigation is yet to commence. Learned senior counsel
  for the appellant-Association further contended that in view of
  the fact that persons concerned in the issue are members of
G the bar, police personnel, persons from both print and electronic
  media, it is a fit case which the Central Bureau of Investigation
  (CBI) should investigate fixing an outer limit for the same.

      6. On the other hand, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior
H counsel appearing for the respondent-State, by drawing our
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE v. UNION 821
    OF INDIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM. CJI.]
attention to various orders of the High Court and this Court,          A
submitted that owing to the clarifications sought for in respect
of the composition of SIT, the matter got delayed in
commencing the investigation and according to him, there is
no need to entrust the investigation to an agency like CBI.
                                                                       B
     7. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG appearing for the
Union of India submitted that though the CBI is to abide by the
orders of this Court but due to various activities being handled
by the CBI, let the SIT be allowed to continue and complete the
investigation.                                                         c
Discussion:
      8. It is seen that on account of serious and unfortunate
incident involving advocates, police personnel, journalists,
media persons in the City Civil Court Complex at Bangalore             D
on 02.03.2012, large number of persons were assaulted and
injured. It is alleged by the appellant-Association that the same
was caused due to the action of the police and the media. The
appellant-Association also raised serious allegations against
the print and electronic media in broadcasting false and               E
provocative news thereby maligning and demeaning the
advocate community.

     9. Initially, the appellant-Association filed a Writ Petition
No. 7623 of 2012 praying for a direction to the State                  F
Government to entrust the investigation to the CBI. Several other
writ petitions were also filed. By impugned order dated
16.05.2012, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by
constituting a SIT headed by Shri R.K. Raghavan, a retired
Director of the CBI and other officers. It is further seen that on     G
19.10.2012, this Court reconstituted the SIT to investigate into
the incident and also directed to submit a report within three
months from the date of the order.

     10. lfis the grievance of the appellant-Association that in
spite of the directions of this Court arid a series of notifications   H
    822       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 10 S.C.R.


A issued by the State Government constituting and re-constituting
  SIT for one reason or the other, the fact remains that even after
  a lapse of one year and five months from the date of the
  incident, the investigation has not yet been commenced. It is
  unfortunate that even after the order of this Court dated
B 19.10.2012 nothing has happened. It is relevant to mention that
  the constitution of the so-called SIT has not completed till date.
  Though Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the
  respondent-State raised an objection as to the averments in
  para 9 in I.A. No. 8 filed by the appellant-Association, it is clear
C that in spite of the modified order of this Court, the investigation
  is yet to commence due to non-formation of SIT.

         11. As regards entrusting the investigation to the CBI, a
    Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal and
    Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
0
    West Bengal and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 571 has laid down
    certain principles. Though the CBI has issued various principles/
    suggestions for en(1orsing the matter to CBI in para 68, it is
    worthwhile'to'r~f~tlhe conclusion in paras 69 & 70 .
                 ... ~. :_\:11,6 ~

E         "69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question
          referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
          of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
          CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have
          been committed within the territory of a State without the
F         consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal
          structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
          separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the
          protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and
          the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction
G         but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights,
          guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of
          the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.

          70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
          to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by
H
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE v. UNION 823
    OF INDIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
    Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any      A
    order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
    limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers.
    The very plenitude of the power under the said articles
    requires great caution in its .exercise. Insofar as the
    question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct               B
    investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible
    guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such
    power should be exercised but time and again it has been
    reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a
    matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled        c
    some allegations against the local police. This
    extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
    cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
    necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
    investigations or where the incident may have national and
                                                                    0
    international ramifications or where such an order may be
    necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
    fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with
    a large number of cases and with limited resources, may
    find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases    E
    and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
    unsatisfactory investigations."

      Keeping the above principles in mind, considering the
series of unfortunate incidents which occurred within the City
Civil Court Complex, Bangalore on 02.03.2012 involving              F
members of the bar, police personnel, journalists and media
persons and in spite of the specific direction by the High Court
as early as on 16.05.2012, subsequent order of this Court
dated 19, 10.2012, and also of the fact that the composition of
SIT itself has not been finalized, we feel that the present case    G
falls within the principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench
and we are satisfied that CBI inquiry is necessitated in the
matter in issue.

    12. In the light of what is stated above, while setting aside   H
    824      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.05.2012 and
  in modification of earlier order of this Court dated 19.10.2012,
  we entrust the entire investigation of the incident to the CBI.
  Accordingly, we direct the CBI to carry out the investigation and
  submit a report before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction
B at Bangalore within a period of six months from the date of
  receipt of copy of this judgment. We further direct the State/SIT
  to immediately hand over all the records pertaining to the said
  investigation to the CBI.

C        13. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. In view of
    the above direction, no separate order is required in I.A. No. 8
    of 2013, accordingly, the same is also disposed of.

    B.B.B.                     Appeal allowed & I.A. disposed of.