COMMON CAUSE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                     (2015] 6 S.C.R. 731


                 COMMON CAUSE & ORS.                               A
                               v.
                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

         I.A. No. 13/2014 and Crl. M.P. No.387/2015
                                                                   B
                               IN
               (Writ Petition (C} No.463/2012)
                        MAY 14, 2015

       [MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND                          c
                   A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      Investigation - Fair investigation - Coal-Block allocation
case - Interlocutory application, seeking direction to the
Director CBI (Ranjit Sinha) not to interfere with investigations   D
in coal-block a/location case and direction to appoint SIT to
investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI
Director in order to scuttle inquiries, investigations and
prosecutions carried out by CBI, in coal block allocation
cases and other important cases - Held: On account of              E
superannuation of the Director, the plea of his refusal from
the investigation has become infructuous - Investigations
must not only be fair, but must appear to have been conducted
in a fair manner- The responsibility of investigating agency.      F
to ensure that innocent person is not subjected to criminal
trial, is coupled with equally high degree of ethical rectitude
to ensure that investigations are fair and without bias - The
fact of the CBI Director meeting some of the accused persons
without the Investigating Officer or the investigating team        G
creates a doubt regarding fairness of the investigations -
Therefore, some further inquiry is necessary to ensure the
fairness of investigations in coalb/ock a/location cases as to
whether any one or more such meetings had any impact on
                               731                                 H
732         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     the investigations and subsequent charge-sheets or closure
      reports - Assistance of Central Vigilance Commission
      sought for determining the methodology for conducting such
      inquiry- Investigation.

B        Sidhartha Vashisht@ Manu Sharma v. State (2010) 6
      SCC 1; ManoharLal Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 532-relied on.

      · FIR- Registration of- Interlocutory application seeking
  recusal of the CBI Director (Ranjit Sinha) from the
c investigation in coalblock a/location case and also seeking
  appointment of SIT to investigate the abuse of authority by
  him - Application by the CBI Director seeking direction to
  register FIR against the Advocate (Prashant Bhushan) and
  the petitioner/applicant for making deliberate and intentional
D false statements in the present proceedings - Took the plea
  that they were guilty ofpeljury and contempt of court and that
  the advocate was also guilty of violating the provisions of
  Official Secrets Act- HELD: If the whistle blower gets access
  to the documents, secrecy of which ought to have been
E maintained by the CBI and if the disclosure of such
  documents is in public interest and not malafide, he cannot
  be held liable for contempt of court or perjury- The file notes
  regarding the case of an accused in coalblock allocation case
  which was placed on record, cannot be described as an
F official secret' - Therefore, the application of the CBI Director
  dismissed- Contempt of Court- Official Secrets Act, 1923
  - Penal Code, 1860 - Perjury.

      Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377; State of Madhya
G Pradesh v. Narmada BachaoAndolan &Anr. (2011) 7 SCC
  639; Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K.Jain (2010)
  8 sec 281 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference
H
         (2010) 6 sec 1          relied on.       Para 33
           COMMON CAUSE v."UNION OF INDIA                           733


   (2014) 2 sec 532           relied on.        Para 34              A

   (2014) s sec 377           referred to.      Para 38

   (2011) 1 sec 639           refereed to.      Para 39

   (2010) 8 sec 281           referred to.      Para 40              B

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 13 of 2014 and
Crl M.P. No. 387 of 2015

                               IN                                    c
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012

    [UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA]
                                                                     D
    A. Sharan, Vikas Singh Guru Kishan Kumar, Prashant
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Sudip Shrivastava, AmitAnand
Tiwari, Sanchit Guru, Ashutosh Jha, Abhinav Raghuvanshi,
Abhinandan Banerjee, Deepika Kalia, Kapish Seth, Chandra
Prakash, Meenakshi Grover, Ajay Sharma, Gaurav Sharma, E
Menaka Guruswamy, Himanshu Agarwal, Madhulika, D.S.
Mahra, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, T.K. Singh, S.S.
Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ruchi Kohli, S.
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Kamini Jaiswal,
Mishra Saurabh, D. Mahesh Babu, Kirti Renu Mishra, Anip F
Sachthey, Saakaar Sardana, Khaitan & Co., E.G. Agarwala,
Braj Kishore Mishra, Aparna Jha, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,
Dinesh Kumar Garg, Shally Bhasin, Hemantika Wahi Jesal
Wahi, for the appearing parties.
                                                                     G
   The order of the Court was delivered by

      MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The prayer in IA No.13/2014
filed by Common Cause & others is two-fold:

    (1) Direct Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, notto interfere in
                                                                     H
734         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     the coal block allocation case investigations and prosecutions
      being carried out by the CBI and to recuse himself from these
      cases.

           (2) Direct an SIT appointed by the Hon'ble Court to
B     investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI
      Director in order to scuttle inquires, investigations and
      prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in coal block
      allocation cases and other important cases.

c      2. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, since Mr. Ranjit
  Sinha, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short
  the CBI) has admittedly superannuated on or about 2nd
  December, 2014 the question of his recusal from
  investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI
D in respect of cases arising out of what is now commonly known
  as the Coal Block Allocations case has become infructuous.
  We are, therefore, concerned only with the second prayer in
  the application.

          3. The prayer in Crl. MP No.387/2015 filed by Mr. Ranjit
E
      Sinha is as follows:

           A. Direct the concerned Police Station to register an FIR
           against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the Petitioner Association
           (i.e. Common Cause) and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal for
 F         making deliberate and intentional false statements.on
           oath and before this Hon'ble Court in these proceedings,

           B. Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fa
           and proper.
G
          4. We propose to consider both these applications since
      we have heard submissions on them.

      5. It is not necessary to go into the detailed background of
H the case since all the facts are on record in the judgment
                                v.
            COMMON CAUSE UNION OF INDIA                             735
                [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

delivered by this Court in Manohar Lat Sharma v. Principal A
Secretary and Ors.' Nevertheless, some facts are necessary
for the purposes of a decision on these applications.

    6. During the course of hearing of the writ petition on 24 111
January, 2013 and in response to a query made by this Court, B
a statement was made by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that on the next date of hearing, the status of the
investigations (into the allotment of coal blocks) shall be made
known to this Court through an affidavit filed by a competent
authority. The case was then adjourned to 12th March, 2013.        C

     7. Pursuant to the statement made by the learned
Additional Solicitor General, a status report was filed by the
CBI on 8th March, 2013 in a sealed cover. This status report
was perused on 12th March, 2013 and upon a consideration D
of the entire matter, this Court required an affidavit to be filed
by the Director, CBI thatthe status report submitted was vetted
by him and nothing therein has been shared with the political
executive. He was also required to state on affidavit that the
same procedure would be followed in respect of subsequent E
status reports that may be filed in this Court. The status report
was then re-sealed and the case adjourned to 30th April, 2013.

    8. Acting on the above order, the Director, CBI filed the
requisite affidavit on 26111 April, 2013. When the case was taken    F
up on 30th April, 2013 the affidavit filed by the Director, CBI
was perused and this Court was of the view that the following
aspects needed to be clarified by the Director, CBI:

      "(i) As to why in the status report dated 08.03.2013 no G
      disclosure was made to this Court that the draft report
      has been shared with the political executive and officials.

      (ii) What was the basis and reasons for the C.B.I. in
' (2014) 2 sec 532                                                   H
736       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A        making the statement on 12.03.2013 through its counsel
         (Additional Solicitor General) before this Court that the
         status report dated 08.03.2013 has not been shared with
         any one and it is meant only for the Court.

B         (iii) In the affidavit now filed by the Director, C.B.I. on April
          26, 2013 it is stated that the draft of the status report
          dated March 8, 2013 was shared with the Minister of
          Law &Justice as desired by him prior to its submission
          before this Court and it was also shared with Joint
C         Secretary level officers each of the Prime Minister's
          Officer and Ministry of Coal as desired by them but
          nothing has been said in the affidavit whether or not
          changes were made in the draft report and, if yes, at
          whose instance and the extent of changes and whether
D         besides the three persons mentioned in para 4 of the
          affidavit, the draft report was shared with any other person
         in that meeting.

         (iv) The names of the two officers one each of the Prime
E        Minister's Office and Ministry of Coal referred to in para
         4 of the affidavit.

        (v) xxxx xxxxx
        (vi) xxxx xxxxx"
F
       9. It was directed that an affidavit giving the above
  information may be filed by the Director, CBI by 6th May, 2013
  and the case was then adjourned to 8th May, 2013. As required,
  the Director, CBI filed a further affidavit in this regard on 61"
G May,2013.

       10. When the case was taken up on 81" May, 2013 Mr.
  Prashant Bhushan learned counsel for Common Cause made
  his submissions. Keeping the submissions in mind it was
H directed that the Director, CBI shall henceforth ensure the
            COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                             737
                . [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

secrecy of inquiries and investigations into the allocation of A
coal blocks and that no access of any nature whatsoever is
provided to any person or authority including any Minister of
the Central Cabinet, Law Officers, Advocates of the CBI,
Director of Prosecution and Officials/Officers of the Central
Government.                                                    B

     11. It is in the background ofthe above broad facts relating
to the secrecy (and purity) of the investigations that IA No. 13/
2014 appears to have been moved by Common Cause with
some additional facts having come to its notice after the C
aforesaid orders were passed by this Court.

     Pleadings and documents

     12. Apart from stating a few relevant facts in the application,    D
what is of immediate concern is the averment made in
paragraph 9 of the application that Common Cause has come
to know that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI had met several
persons at his residence who are accused in prominent cases
including the Coal Block Allocation scam without any of the             E
investigating officers being present. (Emphasis is given by us).

     It is then stated in Para 10 of the application as follows:

      "It is of particular significance that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had
      several meetings with Mr. Vijay Darda, and.his son Mr. F
      Devendra Darda, who are being investigated in the case
      of illegal allocation of coal blocks. Mr. Sinha also met
      with Mr. Subodh Kant Sahay, former Union Minister,
      whose brother's company is one of the beneficiaries of
      the allocation of coal blocks and is being investigated G
      by the CBI."

     13. In paragraph 11 of the application, it is stated that there
is an 'entry register' containing details of visitors, including the
accused persons, who met Mr. Sinha at his residence from                H
738             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A time to time. It is stated that Mr. Sinha did not meet them at his
  office or in the presence of the investigating officers. Rather
  he met them at his residence without the investigation team
  being present. A copy of the 'entry register' is filed in a sealed
  cover as an annexure to the application.
B
        14. In paragraph 12 of the application a reference is made
  to Mr. Ranjit Sinha meeting some accused persons in what is
  commonly known as the 2G spectrum case being an appeal
  filed by the Centre for PIL. 2
c
            15. At this stage it is necessary to digress a bit and mention
      that in the 2G spectrum case, an application was filed by the
      petitioner therein being IA No. 73 of2014 in which it was prayed
      as follows: ·
D
               "(i) Direct the CBI Director Shri Ranjit Sinha not to inter-
               fere in investigation and prosecution of the case relating
               to the 2G spectrum allocation being carried out by the
               CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.
E             (ii) Pass further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."

        16. An additional affidavit dated 5'" September, 2014 was
  also filed in support of IA No. 73 of2014 in which it was prayed
  that this Court should "order an SIT investigation into the gross
F abuse of authority committed by the CBI Director in trying to
  scuttle investigations and prosecutions being carried out by
  the CBI in 2G scam cases and other prominent cases ... "

       17. After an elaborate hearing, this Court passed an or-
G der in IA No. 73 of 2014 on 20'" November, 2014 the relevant
  portion of which reads as follows:

              "To protect and preserve the sanctity and the fair name of

H     2
          Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010: Centre for PIL v. Union of India
               COMMON CAU'SEv. UNION OF INDIA                         739
                    [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

     the institution including the reputation of the Office of the A
     Director of CBI, we are.not deliberately giving out elabo-
     rate reasons. It would suffice for us to observe that the
     information furnished by the applicants is prima facie cred-
     ible and therefore requires to be accepted.
                                                                       B
     Let it not be said by anybody, that we have not given any
     reasons while disposing of the application. We are reiter-
     ating this statement only to prevent flak from several quar-
   . ters of the society. We would like to re-emphasize that
     elaborate reasons are not necessary, only to protect the C
     reputation of the CBI from being tarnished.

     In view of the above, we grant the aforesaid relief sought
by the applicants and pass the following orders:-
                                                                       D
        (i) We recall our earlier order passed on 15.09.2014
        so far as it relates to I.A. No. 73 of 2014.

        (ii) We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to in-
        terfere in the investigation and prosecution of the case
        relating to the 2G spectrum allocation that is carried out E
        by the CBI, and to recuse himselffrom the case.

        (iii) Shri Ranjit Sinha shall be replaced by the senior
        most officer of the investigating team, constituted by the
        CBI to investigate into the case relating to the 2G spec- F
        trum allocation and continue the proceedings further.

     With the above observations, I.A. No. 73 of 2014 (appli-
cation for directions) is disposed of."3
                                                                       G
      18. In support of his submission that an SIT should be
constituted to look into the abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha
in attempting to scuttle the investigations into the coal block

' (2015) 2   sec 362                                                   H
                               •
740         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     allocations, Mr. Prashant Bhushan filed a short note dated 12th
      January, 2015. Along with the note, he annexed a photocopy
      of a file in respect of the case against the Dardas
      (abovementioned). It was submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan
      during the course of his oral submissions that the photocopy
B     of the file was given to him by a whistle blower.

         19. In response, the CBI filed a note date 18th September,
  2014 in a sealed cover indicating the detailed procedure
  followed by the CBI before a final decision is taken by a
C competent authority on closing a case or filing a charge sheet.
  It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the procedure
  followed but it is necessary only to mention that the CBI does
  follow quite a detailed and open process of discussion and
  expression of views before a final decision is taken on matters
D before it. We may record that we have absolutely no quarrel
  with the procedure prescribed by the CBI before it takes a
  final decision. With regard to the 'entry register' relied upon by
  Mr. Prashant Bhushan it is stated that a copy thereof has not
  been supplied to the counsel for the CBI and in any case it is
E the subject matter of an enquiry before another Bench dealing
  with the 2G spectrum case.

        20. The CBI also filed a note dated 20th February, 2015 in
  a sealed cover. In this note, the merits of the controversy relating
F to the Dardas are adverted to and the decisions taken by the
  CBI have been justified. It is also stated that the strength of the
  CBI lies in the multiple levels of supervision where each level
  is free and independent in expressing its views and
  recommendations. It is only after taking account of these views
G and recommendations that the competent authority passes a
  final order which then becomes the stand of the CBI.

           21. With reference to the 'entry register' or the visitor's
      diary, it is stated that it has not been supplied to the CBI and it
H
       .1 •: 1• C,OMMON. C~L!SE v. UNION OF INDIA                    741
      .              [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]

was not maintained by the CBI. It is submitted that since false A
statements have been made by Common Cause in respect of
the case pertaining to the Dardas, the 'visitor's diary' must
also be viewed with suspicion.

      22. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated        B
Stti May, 2013 passed by this Court to the effect that the secrecy
of the inquiries and investigations must be ensured. It is
submitted in this context that the fact that Common Cause has
obtained a copy of the note sheets of the office file indicates
that the secrecy of the concerned file has been compromised           c
and that the CBI is taking steps to ascertain how the file moved
out ofthe office.

    23. Mr. Prashant Bhushan filed a note in rejoinder                     •
essentially reiterating the submissions made.          D

      24.AsfarasCrl. MP No. 387/2015filed by Mr. RanjitSinha
 is concerned, he states that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Common
 Cause and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal of Common Cause have
 deliberately made misstatements and stated facts that are not E
true with a view to mislead this Court. It is submitted in the
 application that according to them, one Mr. Moin Qureshi had
dealings with Mr. Sinha and that an appraisal report prepared
 by the Income Tax Department contained some details in this
 regard. It is submitted that this allegation was found to be F
 incorrect and was stated so by the learned Attorney General
when he appeared in this Court on 17'" October, 2014. This
Court had also seen the appraisal report and did not find
anything to link Mr. Moin Qureshi with Mr. Sinha.
                                                                      G
      25. It is also stated that in IA No. 13/2014 as well as the
additional affidavit filed in support of this application it has been
falsely stated that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had overruled his
subordinate officers with a view to bring a closure to certain
cases and this was false to the knowledge of Mr. Prashant H
742         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     Bhushan and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal.

           26. Significantly, in paragraph 6 of the application (that is
      Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015) Mr. Sinha has adverted to the contents
      of paragraph 9 of IA No.13/2014, wherein it has been stated
 B    that Mr. Sinha met some accused persons in some prominent
      cases including the Coal Block Allocation case without the
      investigating officer being present. While adverting to this,
      Mr. Sinha states in paragraph 6 of the application as follows:-

 C          "That it has wrongly been averred in para 9 that Shri.
            Sinha (Former Director, CBI) repeatedly overruled the
            Investigating Officers and forced them not to register
            FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered. It
            has been further wrongly averred that Shri Sinha forced
 o          the officials to file closure reports in cases where FIR's
            has already been registered."

          27. It is noteworthy that Mr. Sinha does not deny that he
      met some accused persons in the Coal Block Allocation case
 E    without the investigating officer being present.

           Submissions and discussion

           28. We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan for Common Cause,
      Mr. Amarendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel for the CBI and
 F    Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Ranjit Sinha
      in considerable detail over a few days.

        29. We are of the opinion that it is not at all necessary for
   us, nor is it advisable at this stage, to enter the thicket of
 G allegations made by Common Cause with regard to the
   investigations relating to the Dardas or the alleged attempt by
   Mr. Ranjit Sinha to scuttle the investigations with regard to one
   or more of the accused persons in that case. What is of greater
   importance and what has caused us considerable concern is
 H that neither Mr. Ranjit Sinha nor the CBI denies that Mr. Ranjit
            COMMON CAUSE
           - .. ' ' "
                   """' '
                          v. UNION
                             .
                                   OF INDIA                         743
                [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Sinha had met some persons, including the Dardas, who are            A
accused of criminality in the Coal Block Allocations case
without the investigating officer or the investigating team being
present.

     30. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of Mr. Ranjit B
Sinha that it is his job to meet the accused persons and to get
their point of view before taking a final decision in the matter
of their criminality. It is submitted that there is no wrongdoing if
he as the Director of the CBI meets some accused persons
so that if they are innocent, they should not unnecessarily and C
without proper justification be. subjected to a criminal
prosecution.

     31. We need not comment on the opinion of Mr. Ranjit
Sinha expressed through his learned counsel Mr. Vikas Singh D
except to say that even if Mr. Sinha is right, there cannot at all
be any justification for him to meet any accused person in a
criminal case where investigation is underway, without the
investigating officer being present, whether it is in his office or
as alleged by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, at his residence and that E
too, allegedly, several times including late at night. If at all Mr.
Sinha as the Director of the CBI had to meet any accused
person for obtaining his point of view on the allegations against
him, he should have done so in the presence of the
investigating officer or the investigating team. The fact that Mr. F
Sinha admittedly met some accused persons in the absence
of the investigating officer or the investigating team is itself a
cause for concern.

     32. There is a very high degree of responsibility placed G
on an investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person
is not subjected to a criminal trial. This responsibility is coupled
with an equally high degree of ethical rectitude required of an
investigating officer or an investigating agency to ensure that
the investigations are carried out without any bias and are H
744          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A conducted in all fairness not only to the accused person but
  also to the victim of any crime, whether the victim is an
  individual or the State.
           33. In Sidhartha Vashisht@Manu Sharma v. State"
B this Court made the following observations with regard to the
  entitlement of an accused to a fair investigation:
             "In the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused is
             placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under
c           different jurisprudence of some of the countries in the
            world. The criminal justice administration system in India
            places human rights and dignity for human life at a much
             higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused is
            presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the alleged
o           accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and
            fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play balanced
            role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be
            judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure
            compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the
E           fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and
            they are quite in conformity with the constitutional
            mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the
            Constitution of India."

F          34. Similarly, in Manohar Lal Sharma5this Court
      observed that investigations have to be fair, impartial and
      uninfluenced by external influences. It is stated as follows:
            "A proper investigation into crime is one of the essentials
G           of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule
            of law. The investigation by the police under the Code
            has to be fair, impartial and uninfluenced by external

      • c2010) e sec 1
H • c2014) 2 sec 532
             COMMON CA.USE v. UNION OF INDIA                    745
                  [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

      influences. Where investigation into crime is handled by A
      CBI under the DSPEAct, the same principles apply and
      CBI as an investigating agency is supposed to discharge
      its responsibility with competence, promptness, fairness
      and uninfluenced and unhindered by external influences. •oe
                                                                   B
     35. In the present case, the contention of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sinha is that there is nothing
to indicate that his client tried to scuttle the investigations and
the reference to the investigations in the case of the Dardas is
completely misplaced. It was contended by learned counsel C
appearing for the CBI as well as learned counsel for Mr. Ranjit
Sinha that a prayer for an investigation by an SIT having not
been accepted by this Court in the application made in the 2G
spectrum case, the same request in this application should
not be accepted.                                                    D
     36. As mentioned above, it is not necessary for us to
examine whether the investigation into the case of the Dardas
was in any manner influenced by Mr. Sinha at any point of time.
What is of importance is that as justice must not only be done E
but it must also appear to have been done, similarly,
investigations must not only be fair but must appear to have
been conducted in a fair manner. The fact that Mr. Sinha met
some of the accused persons without the investigating officer
or the investigating team being present disturbs us with regard F
to the fairness of the investigations. This is all the more so if
we keep in mind the fact that in the 2G scam investigations,
this Court had concluded in its order dated 201h November,
2011 that Mr. Ranjit Sinha should not interfere in the
investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G G
spectrum allocation and to recuse himself from the case. That
an SIT was not ordered in the 2G spectrum case is not relevant.
A view was taken that Mr. Sinha should be directed to not
' Paragraph 33 of the Report                                       H
746              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     interfere in the investigations in that case and that, coupled
      with his meeting accused persons in the Coal BlockAllocation
      case without the investigating officer being present, is enough
      to persuade us that some further inquiry is necessary to ensure
      that the investigations have been fair in the coal block allocation
B     cases where Mr. Sinha has had one or more meetings with
      one or more accused persons.

        37. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI passionately
  submitted that any adverse order that we may pass in this
C regard would irreparably damage the credibility of the CBI. In
  our opinion this argument is fallacious. If an independent inquiry
  shows that the CBI has acted fairly, it will enhance its institutional
  credibility and its image. On the other hand, ifthe independent
  inquiry shows that Mr. Ranjit Sinha managed to influence some
D specific investigations in the Coal Block Allocations case, it
  will serve the larger public interest and will enable the CBI to
  take appropriate corrective and remedial measures. Either
  way, through an independent inquiry the CBI will be the
  beneficiary rather than the loser.
E
          38. While opposing IA No. 13/2014 and supporting Crl.
      MP No. 387/2015 Mr. Vikas Singh relied upon Perumal v.
      Janakf to contend that when a palpably false statement is
      made for extraneous reasons, it is an appropriate case for the
F     exercise of jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of
      Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code).

       39. Similarly, reference was made to State of Madhya
  Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Ando/an & Anr. 8 where also
G this Court observed that it is a settled proposition of law that a
  false statement made in Court or in the pleadings to
  intentionally mislead the Court and to obtain a favourable order

           s sec 377
      1 (2014)


H • c2011) 7 sec 639
     ;i   ~·   COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                        747
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

amounts to criminal contempt as it tends to impede the                A
administration of justice.

       40. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan referred to
  Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K.Jain9 with
  regard to the growing acceptance of the phenomenon of a B
· whistle blower. This Court observed that the respondent in
  that case was the whistle blower who had tried to highlight the
  malfunctioning of an important institution established for
  dealing with cases involving the revenue of the State and there
  was no reason to silence such a person by invoking the C
  contempt powers of the Court under the Constitution or the
  ContemptofCourtsAct, 1971.

      41. Though the submissions made by Mr. Sinha's learned
 counsel on the contents of his application were limited, the         o
 oral submissions spread over a larger canvas. It is submitted
 by Mr. Vikas Singh that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Common
 Cause and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal have not only committed
 perjury but are also guilty of contempt of Court and additionally
 Mr. Prashant Bhushan has violated the provisions of the Official     E
 Secrets Act, 1923 by placing on record the official notes with
 regard to the case of the Dardas. We have considered Mr.
 Sinha's application from all these angles.

     42. In our opinion, the submissions made by Mr. Vikas F
Singh in th.is regard do not deserve acceptance. It is true that
this Court had required the Director, CBI to ensure, by its order
dated 8111 May, 2013 that the secrecy of the inquiries and
investigations into the allocation of coal blocks is maintained.
However, if somebody accesses documents that ought to be G
carefully maintained by the CBI, it is difficult to find fault with
such a whistle blower particularly when his or her action is in
public interest. It is another matter if the whistle blower uses

• (2010) s sec 2s1                                                    H
748         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A the documents for a purpose that is outrageous or that may
  damage the public interest. In that event, it would be
  permissible forth is Court or an appropriate Court to take action
  against the whistle blower, if he or she is identified. However,
  the present case is not of any such category. The whistle blower,
B whoever it is, acted purportedly in public interest by seeking
  to bring out what he or she believes is an attempt by Mr. Ranjit
  Sinha to scuttle the investigations into the affairs of the Dardas
  or others in the Coal Block Allocation case. As mentioned
  above, we are not considering whether the file notes actually
C disclose an attempt by Mr. Sinha to scuttle the investigations.
  All that is of relevance is whether the disclosure by the whistle
  blower was mala fide or not. We are of the opinion that the
  disclosures made by the whistle blower were intended to be
  in public interest.
0
        43. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Mr.
  Prashant Bhushan or Common Cause or Mr. Kamal Kant
  Jaswal had any intention to mislead this Court in any manner,
  nor do we agree that they have perjured themselves.
E
           The file notes speak for themselves and any interpretation,
      even an allegedly twisted interpretation said to have been given
      to them, cannot fall within th.e realm of perjury.

F        44. As far as the allegation that there has been a violation
    of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is concerned,
    we are of the opinion that the file notes in this case cannot be
    described as an 'official secret' for the purposes of prosecuting
    Mr. Prashant Bhushan.
9~--
         45.Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 387 of2015
    is dismissed.

        46. With regard to IA No. 13 of 2014, since we have held
H that it was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha to have
        ~' COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                       749
                     [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

met persons accused in the Coal Block Allocation case without A
the investigating officer being present or without the
investigating team being present, it is necessary to look into
the question whether any one or more such meetings of Mr.
Sinha with accused persons without the investigating officer
have had any impact on the investigations and subsequent B
charge sheets or closure reports filed by the CBI. We require
assistance in this matter, particularly for determining the
methodology for conducting such an inquiry. For rendering
assistance to us in this regard, notice be issued to the Central
Vigilance Commission returnable on 61h July, 2015.               C
Kalpana K Tripathy                        Crl. M.P. dismissed
                                          & I. A. Pending.